BEENA YADU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order in the criminal revision No. 426/2002 arising out the order dated 8-3-2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, in Criminal Case No. 3474/1997 shall also dispose of connected Criminal Revision No. 348/2002 filed against the order dated 15-3-2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, in criminal case No. 3474/1997.

(2.) It is said that on 9-3-1997 a child delivered at 06.30 by one Smt. Manisha Jain under care and supervision of staff nurse died in a Government Hospital allegedly due to negligence of the applicant. It is also said that being a Government Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Damoh, the applicant had treated Smt. Manisha Jain wife of Ravindra Kumar Jain, the complainant herein, privately and had also received a fee of Rs. 80/-. It is also a case of the prosecution that the applicant had demanded Rs. 2,000/- and since the money had not been paid, the applicant had refused to attend to the patient in the hospital. It is also alleged that despite a request sent to the applicant, she had not attended to the patient and she had reached only at 07.30 and had declared the child dead. On a report lodged by the complainant on 12-3-1997, the police registered an offence and also filed a charge-sheet under Section 304-A of IPC. The applicant, accordingly, filed an objection application under Sections 239 and 258, Cr. P. C., in view of protection granted to a public servant under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The said objection appears to have been rejected only on the ground that since a newly born child died, there is a prima facie material that the applicant was negligent.

(3.) It is said that during investigation the police recorded statements of complainant Ravindra Kumar Jain, one Mukesh Kumar Jain and also that of the staff Nurses namely Neelima Mishra and Smt. Preeti Masih. It is also said that Smt. Preeti Masih had attended to Smt. Manisha Jain and had found that the patient had not developed any problem and therefore, the applicant had not been sent for to attend to her. It is also said that the dead body of the child was not subjected is post-mortem examination.