SUNIL KUMAR PADHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 09.03.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 71 of 2006 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh framing charge against the petitioner under Section 304 Part 1 IPC.

(2.) FACT of the case, in brief, is that on 03.12.2003 one Ajaya Kumar Ray lodged an FIR before the I.I.C., Titilagarh Police Station that his son, Sachin Kumar Ray, for fracture on his hand, was under the treatment of the petitioner, who was then serving as Asst. Surgeon, S.D. Hospital, Titilagarh. On the advice and prescription of the petitioner, two injections were given to his son on 01.12.2003. As the condition of his son became serious, the informant took him to Dr. Padhi, who advised him to give ice message. But seeing the condition of his son further deteriorating, informant brought him to the hospital at 5 P.M. on 02.12.2003 and admitted him as an indoor patient. Dr. B.B. Naik examined his son and advised him to shift the patient to D.H.H., Bolangir. But, on the way near Phapsi his son expired. The informant alleged that due to negligence of the petitioner his son expired. The informant also suspected that the injections administered to his son might have contained some poisonous substance. After due investigation, final form was submitted against the petitioner under Section 304 IPC. After commitment of the case, the Addl. Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, framed charge under Section 304(I) IPC against the petitioner.

(3.) MR . Behera, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate vehemently contended that there are ample materials against the petitioner. Names of eighteen witnesses have been mentioned in the charge sheet. The statement of the informant, the mother of the deceased, the aunt of the deceased and the friends of the deceased as well as the statement of the staff nurse and other witnesses statement is sufficient to frame charge under Section 304(I) IPC. He further contended that sanction order can be produced at any stage of the trial.