SNEH LATA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RANBIR Mehta. husband, Som Parkash and Raj Rani Parents-in-law. Jagjivan Ram, husband's brother, Sneh Lata, husband's sister of Saroj deceased and Dr. Satya Wati Loomba, in whose clinic the deceased remained on 3.3.1987 from 7 p. m. upto 2:00 a m. on 4.3.1987 and was subsequently referred to Civil Hospital, Ambala, were challaned under Sections 304A 304B, 315, 498A and 120 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of First Information Report No. 32 dated 12th August, 1987 registered at Police Station, Lalru, district Patiala. The Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned order dated 4th of February, 1989 discharged Dr. Satya Wati Loomba under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and framed charge against the rest of the accused under sections 498A, 120B, 315 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against the impugned order Punjab State filed Criminal Revision No. 716 of 1989 whereas Vijay Kumar complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 342 of 1989. In both these petitions order discharging. Satya Wati Loomba under section 227 of the Code has been challenged whereas Criminal Misc. No. 3384-M of 1989 under section 482 of the Code has been filed by Sneh Lata and Jagjivan Ram in respect of charges framed against them by the trial Court. As common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions, it would be convenient to dispose of all these petitions by one judgment.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid petitions are that marriage between Saroj deceased and Ranbir Mehta accused was solemnised on 18-11-1984. According to the complainant marriage had been performed, decently; that after sometime the complainant heard that Saroj was not happy and was being pressurised by her in-laws to bring more dowry. At first the mother and the sister of Saroj took the rumours lightly. Later on, they realised that saroj was not happy and her life was likely to be, finished. Mother in-law of Saroj used to taunt her and her relatives that they had not given anything even after the marriage. In-laws of the deceased did not allow her to visit her parents nor she could talk freely to her patents and other relations. The deceased was in family way and the expected date of delivery was 16th of February, 1987. On 15.2.87 Ranbir Mehta accused attended the marriage of Vijay Kumar complainant. At that time also be quarrelled with his in-laws as they had not helped him financially to open a clinic at Ambala. According to the prosecution allegations the accused deliberately did not lake the deceased in time to any lady doctor for ante-natal care before 3.3.1987. On that day, she was taken from the village first to the clinic of Dr Satya Wati Loomba at Ambala and was got admitted. Her condition deteriorated. Dr. Satya Wati Loomba was not in a position to handle the case so Saroj was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala where Dr. Pushpa Garg attended on her and remarked that it was a badly handled case. Saroj gave birth to a child at 2.30 A.M. on 4.3.1987 who died at about 3.30 a.m. on the same day whereas Saroj died at about 7 a.m. Information about the death of mother and child was not given to the police nor such information was sent to her parents. Nor the postmortem examination was carried out. Parents of Saroj deceased reached at about 11 a m. on 4.3.1987 but they were not allowed to go near the deceased. Vijay Kumar brother of Saroj deceased complained in writing to the Director General of Police on 11.3.1987 and levelled allegations that the death of Saroj deceased and her child were not natural. Initially the investigating agency was of The view that it was a case of natural death. Vijay Kumar made another application on 21.9.87 that in-laws of Saroj being doctors had intentionally delayed the delivery of child and caused her death as well as of her child. Thereafter case under sections 304A and 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused, Offences under sections 304B, 315 and 20B of the Indian Penal Code were also added. Civil Surgeon, Patiala also opined that delivery case of the deceased was not properly handled during ante-natal period while the deceased was admitted in Women Hospital, Ambala Cantt. After completion of the investigation all the accused were challaned and committed to the Court of Session.

(3.) ON behalf of the State as well as the complainant, it was vehemently argued that the delivery case of Smt. Saroj was not properly handled by Dr. Satya Wati Loomba when the deceased was brought to the private clinic of the said doctor on the evening of 3.3.1987 at about 7 p.m. It was further submitted that in connivance, with her other co-accused Dr. Satya Wati Lookba purposely did not render proper medical aid or help to Saroj and deliberately with held such medical aid at the instance of other co-accused and at a very late stage referred the case to Civil Hospital, Ambala. Reference was also made to the statement of Chander Mohan PW recorded by the police during the investigation on 4.1.1986. According to this witness on 3.3.1987 at about 10 a.m. when he went for check up of his wife to Dr Satya Wati Loomba, he found Ranbir Mehta and his father Som Parkash Mehta accused sitting and talking with Dr. Satya Wati Loomba. In his presence Som Parkash accused told Dr. Loomba that Saroj was to deliver a child and wanted Dr. Satya Wati Loomba to finish Saroj and her child by giving wrong medicine or by using some other method and Dr Satya Wati Loomba, actually agreed to said proposal. He came to know about the death of Saroj on the next day.