V MARIE Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein was tried in C.C. No. 39 of 2000 by I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. During the course of trial, P Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. DW1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. Having analyzed the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 31.01.2003, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner is guilty of the charged offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Questioning the judgment, the Petitioner-accused filed Crl.A. No. 29 of 2003, and the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, while concurring with the findings arrived at by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and also compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to PW1 - wife of the deceased, instead of sentence of imprisonment. Challenging the judgment dated 17.03.2004, the Petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07.09.1997, at about 09.30 p.m., when the deceased-Guruvaiah, and his wife - PW1, were coming from the agricultural field, her husband was bitten by a snake, and he was brought to MGM Hospital, Warangal. As he was not treated properly and injection was not administered to him at the appropriate time, he died. On receipt of a complaint from PW1, the Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr. No. 218 of 1999 against the Petitioner-accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

(3.) Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-accused, has mainly contended that the death of the husband of PW1 was not solely on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the Petitioner -V. Mary for the reason that at the relevant point of time, she was only working as Staff Nurse and not competent to treat the patients, who come to the hospital. According to the learned Counsel, the husband of PW1 was brought to hospital with a snake-bite, and as the injection was not readily available in hospital, the Doctor gave prescription to P Ws.1 to 3 and directed them to get the injection from medical shop. When P Ws.1 to 3 returned stating that the injection was not available, the Petitioner brought it to the notice of the Doctor about the availability of the injection in the hospital, meanwhile, the patient died, as such, the act of the Petitioner cannot be said to be rash and negligent. He further contended that both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, ought not to have accepted the evidence of PW3 for the reason that it is an afterthought and an improvement.