K K PATNAYAK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three petitioners in this revision challenge the order dated 22-1-94 of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T.No. 26/92 whereby prayer of these petitioners to discharge was declined. These petitioners along with Shyamnarayan were tried for offences u/S. 306, 498-A, 201, IPC. Wife of Shyamnarayan Satyabhama received some burns on 20-7-90. She was brought to N.C.L. Hospital, Amroli where Dr. (Smt.) K. K. Patnayak was Dy. Supdt. She gave treatment to the patient and referred her to N.C.L. Hospital, Singroli the same day. She was taken to the Singroli hospital same day. At Singroli petitioners 2 and 3 Dr. Ashok Sharma and Dr. S. K. Mishra had treated her. She expired on 27-7-90. The incident occurred at 1-30 p.m. and the patient was referred to Singroli that very evening. On the death of the patient one of the doctors sent information to the police on the basis of which marg intimation was recorded and since the parents of the deceased complained of harassment cruelty to the deceased by the husband who is another accused in the case, it ultimately resulted in preparation of the charge-sheet for offences u/S. 306, 498-A, IPC. These petitioners were also sent for trial along with the husband of the decaesed on the ground that they did not report about the admission of the lady with burn injuries in this hospital before her death. The police case is that they could arrange for her dying declaration if timely intimation had been given to them.

(2.) I have heard both the sides on this aspect. The petitioners are said to have committed an offence u/S. 201, IPC, allegedly because they screened the offender by not giving the information in time. On consideration of these allegations on test of requirements of S. 201, IPC it becomes clear that the assertion of the prosecution against these doctors are futile. Screening of an offender is an offence when the offender gives a false information. There is no evidence that any of the doctors had given a false information. They did not give information for 6 days regarding admission of the burn patient. That by itself is not an offence u/S. 201, IPC. The second limb of this offence is causing disappearance of evidence. There is no evidence that these doctors committed an offence of disappearance of evidence. The medical condition of the lady during the period of her admission appears not to have been brought on record by placing the treatment charts or bed-head tickets of her treatment. In any case even we assume favour of prosecution there is no material to suggest that they did not give information so that the patient may die and the evidence of burns may thus be screened. It may have been a statutory or moral duty or even a duty according to rules for these doctors to inform the police about the admission of the burn patient, but non-information will not amount to causing disappearance of offence. So this will not be an offence u/S. 201, IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State urges that it might have been an offence u/S. 202, IPC. That offence requires giving information to police by a person who is bound to give such information regarding commission of offence. No material has been placed on record that these accused knew that in burn injuries of this lady some offence was involved. Even if we assume that it should have been their duty to inform and it is a common practise also, it is clear that offence u/S. 202, IPC cannot be tried along with the charge u/S. 306 or 498A, IPC. It does not fall u/S. 223, Cr. P.C. or with any other provision thereof can be tried jointly. These petitioners could not be tried jointly in that assumed offence u/S. 202 along with those who committed offence u/S. 306 or 498-A, IPC.