PABITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailed in this case are two orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat dtd. 15/2/2016 and 20/7/2016 respectively. The Magistrate, 2nd Court, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur in G.R. Case No.107 of 1997 has delivered the impugned order dtd. 15/2/2016 thereby rejecting the petitioner's prayer under Sec. 258 of the Cr.P.C. The same order has been affirmed in a revision by the Sessions Judge, by dint of his judgment dtd. 20/7/2016.

(2.) The petitioner is a doctor by profession. Against him the de facto complainant alleges the culpable act of being negligent in treatment of his minor son, resulting into death of the said minor. The de facto complainant has lodged FIR in Balurghat Police Station, being registered as Balurghat Police Station Case N0. 38/1997 dtd. 25/1/1997 under Sec. 304 of the IPC. Chargesheet was submitted on 31/5/2003, under Sec. 304A of the IPC.

(3.) The FIR has enumerated inter alia that on 20/4/1997 the thirteen months old son of the de facto complainant was indisposed being suffered with diarrhoea and vomiting. Initially the child was treated by a doctor in the locality, who however, prescribed for providing the child with the saline treatment. The de facto complainant has stated that immediately thereafter at about 10:25 p.m. in the night the child was admitted at Balurghat Hospital. The de facto complainant has stated further that since after admission the physical condition of the child was continuously deteriorating, call was recorded in the 'call book' for the petitioner. The de facto complainant has also stated that they, as the family members of the patient, insisted severely for calling the petitioner to attend, and treat the ailing child, but to no avail. Allegedly in spite of calling him for several times, no response was received. According to the de facto complainant, they have even inquired for any other doctor, if available, to attend the child in the emergency, but allegedly was declined by the attending nurse in the hospital on the plea that only the petitioner was assigned with the duty at the relevant point of time. The de facto complainant stated further that ultimately the petitioner attended the patient at the early morning but by that time the child was only in a grasping condition. Ultimately the child died at 6:55 a.m. in the morning on 21/4/1997. On these facts and circumstances the de facto complainant has alleged that in spite of calling the petitioner for several times in emergency, as he did not attend the patient and did not offer him the appropriate treatment and medication, thus acted negligently and intentionally avoiding his responsibilities. Allegations have been made against him of culpable negligence resulting into death of the child. On these allegations the FIR was lodged, a case was registered under Sec. 304 of the IPC and the investigation proceeded.