STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAKESH MOHAN GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh, assailing the judgment of acquittal, dated 12.02.2008, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P, in criminal case No. 223-1/2003/28-II/2005, under Section304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

(2.) Briefly the facts giving rise to the present appeal as per the prosecution story are that on 22.04.2002, Kamla Devi (since deceased) sister of complainant, Bhag Singh visited the hospital of respondent-accused for kidney stone problem. The respondent gave her medicines, conducted her X-ray and advised her to come again for medical check up. Consequently, on 29.04.2002, the deceased again visited the hospital of the accused, where her X-ray was conducted and it was disclosed to her that she is having stone in her kidney and to remove the stone, an operation is required to be conducted. On 08.07.2002, the deceased accompanied by Bhag Singh went to the hospital of the accused and she was admitted for operation. On 09.07.2002, she was taken to operation theatre, however, after sometime, the accused told the complainant that patient was running 103 degree fever. It was also told by the accused that there is a hole in intestine of the deceased. At that time, no anesthetist was available. The condition of the deceased deteriorated and ultimately at 10:00 p.m. she died. It has been alleged by the complainant that the accused had operated her sister for kidney stone, but it was revealed in the death certificate that the reason of the death was perforation and rapture of intestine. Consequently, the incident was reported to the police and FIR was registered against the accused on the allegations that the deceased died on account of negligence on his part. During the course of investigation, police took into possession the relevant records from the hospital of the accused, as well as medical treatment records of the deceased. The spot map was also prepared and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court

(3.) Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as ten witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 12.02.2008, acquitted the accused for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, hence the present appeal.