SAU SUDHA M BHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two persons by name rajendra Zanaklal Baghele and Bharatlal yadavrao Pund are facing sessions trial case bearing No. 123 of 2000 before the Additional sessions Judge, Bhandara. Accused No. 1 is facing charge under Sections 376 and 314 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas accused No. 2 is facing charge under Section 314, IPC read with Section 33 of the Indian Medical practitioners Act. In the midst of trial, an application came to be made by the public prosecutor, Bhandara before the Additional sessions Judge praying that the present petitioner be joined as accused. This application is possibly made by using the provisions of Section 319 of the Cri. P. C. though there is no specific reference to the said section in the application. The learned additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 03/7/2003 directed that the present petitioner should be joined as accused No. 3 and made to face the trial under Section 314 of the Indian penal Code. This order dated 03/7/2003 is challenged in this petition.

(2.) Few facts necessary for the purposes of disposal of this application are as under : on 23/5/2000 one lady by name Sarita since deceased approached the petitioner for having abortion. The present petitioner had a second opinion obtained from another doctor and the abortion was performed on 24/5/2000 by the petitioner. Said deceased was discharged on 25/5/2000. On 28/5/2000 the deceased complained of some pain in the stomach. She came to the petitioner who advised said Sarita to go to the General hospital, for treatment. She then went to the general Hospital at Bhandara on 07/6/2000, where operation was conducted and thereafter on 17/6/2000 she again had some complaint about her health. At that time she was advised to go to General Hospital at Nagpur for better treatment. Instead of going to Nagpur, she came back to her village and she expired on 27/6/2000. It appears that investigating agency came across the aforesaid facts, and therefore, application for joining the present petitioner as an accused, has been filed.

(3.) Learned A. P. P. Mr. Kale on behalf of the State tried to justify this order by referring to the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. He submitted that investigation shows that deceased Sarita had taken treatment from the present petitioner and present petitioner had occasion to state about the first instance and this is how involvement of the present petitioner is made out. He tried to contend that the learned Additional Sessions judge has taken proper view of the matter and this is how the impugned order is correct.