P KANAKADURGAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition if filed by the 1st accused, in P.R.C. 36 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, to quash the said proceedings wherein she is charged of having committed an offence under Section 304 part II IPC.

(2.) The allegations in the charge sheet, in so far as the petitioner herein (A. 1) is concerned are that one Mrs. Asma Bhanu was admitted in the Government Hospital, Hindupur for delivery on 28-4-204 at about 10.00 a.m. A-1 came after one and half hours, checked her gave her an injection, informed that her delivery would take place in the afternoon and left the place. A-3 to A-5 were on duty as nurses in the labour ward. A-3 wrote a prescripition chit and asked L.Ws. 1 to 3 to get the injection from outside. After the injections were procured, A-3 gave one injection to Mrs. Asma Bhanu, aked L.Ws. 1 to 3 to keep the remaining two injections with them and asked them to intimate as and when Mrs. Asma Bhanu got delivery pains. At about 2,00 p.m, A-3 to A-5 got down from duty and in their place A-6 to A-8 joined duty. L.Ws.1 to 3 showed the injections to A-6 to A-8, who issued a prescription asking them to get other injections. At about 3.00p.m, Mrs. Asma Bhanu had delivery pains and, while A-1 and A-2 the duty doctors were not available, A-6 to A-8 exhibited negligence and did not attend on the patient immediately. Further, they did not even intimate the duty doctors A-1 and A-2 about the condition of Mrs. Asma Bhanu. At about 5.00 p.m. A-6 to A-8 took Mrs. Asma Bhanu into the delivery room and at about 5-30 p.m. she gave birth to a dead child. A-6 to A-8 thereafter informed A-2, the doctor, who checked up Mrs. Asma Bhanu and directed her relatives to get her blood group, without even informing as to which blood group was required. It is alleged that A-2, deposit being an expert, neither informed them about the blood group nor took any steps to ensure survival of Mrs. Asma Bhanu. At 6-30 p.m. A-2 declared Mrs. Asma Bhanu dead. It is alleged that A-1, being the Gynaecologist on duty, had failed to attend on the patient, that A-1 to A-8, who were experts in the medical side, were well aware that the patient would die if the patient was not given proper treatment that they had exhibited gross negligence in giving treatment to the patient and that their negligence had resulted in the death of Mrs. Asma Bhanu and her just born baby.

(3.) Sri O. Monohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner 1st accused, would submit that in so far as A-1 is concerned, the allegations in the charge sheet are only that she attended on the deceased at 10.00 a.m. gave heran injection, informed thatherdelivery would take place in the afternoon, and went away. Learned counsel would also referto that portion of the charge sheet wherein it is alleged that despite the critical condition of the deceased, A-6, to A-8, the nurses on duty, did not intimate the 1st accused about her condition. According to the learned counsel since the only allegation against A-1 is that, being a Gynaecologitst and having attended duty on that fateful day, she had failed to attend on that particular patient, the ingredients of part II of Section 304 IPC are not attracted and consequently the proceedings in P.R.C. 36 of 2004 are liable to be quashed in so far as A-1 is concerned. Learned counsel would place reliance on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab in this regard.