TRINATH RAJGURU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on the request and consent of learned counsel for both the parties it is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) HEARD Mr. P. C. Chhinchani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. The petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 25. 3. 2003 passed by the learned sdjm, Gunupur in GR case No. 291of 2001, wherein he took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304a of IPC.

(3.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the prosecution is that on 16. 8. 2001, while the informant and his wife Ramita Kumari Sethi were coming from Ramguda to their native village, in the district of Kendrapara, on the way at gunupur, the latter complained pain in her stomach and as such, she was immediately taken to the clinic of the petitioner, a doctor at Gunupur and on examination, it was detected that she was carrying 8-9 months of pregnancy. Petitioner treated her for 4 days in his clinic and on 20. 8. 2001 while undergoing treatment, she expired. On the next date i. e. 21. 8. 2008 the informant lodged a written report before the OIC of Gunupur police station, on the allegation that due to gross negligence of the petitioner, his wife expired. As the allegation contained in the report, which was treated as FIR revealed a cognizable case, the OIC registered PS case No. 135 of 2001 and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he visited the spot, examined the witnesses and obtained a report from Dr. Jyotin Kumar dash, Associate Professor FM and TMKCG medical College, Berhampur, on 16. 3. 2002 relating to the cause of death of the deceased. The report shows that the deceased died due to pre-mature rupture of membrane causing amniotic fluid embolism, which is the most common cause of obstetrical death during labour. On the basis of this report and the statement of the witnesses, the IO came to the conclusion that no offence was committed by the accused petitioner and as such submitted final report. But the learned SDJM after going through the case diary, including the report of Dr. Jyotin Kumar Dash, associate Professor, held that there was prima facie material against the accused petitioner to be proceeded under Section 304a of IPC and took cognizance thereunder vide order dated 25. 3. 2003. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal M. C.