VED KHULLER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS . Ved Khuller is a doctor by profession and is running a clinic at Jammu. She has been challaned by Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu for the commission of an offence under Section 304 -A, Ranbir Penal Code for allegedly causing death of Janki Devi because of negligence. She had filed this application under Section 561 -A, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the abovesaid proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution in the challan are that on August 9,1983, Dharam Chand, father of Janki Devi, reported that his daughter was married to one Puran Singh, son of Dharam Singh, resident of village Dhatrian, Tehsil Jammu, five years ago and she had given birth to a female child who is now aged four years. It was further reported by him that the relations of her daughter had become strained with her in -laws who used to beat her and one month earlier they beat her severely and turned her out from their house. She came to live with her parents and afterwards with the intervention of some respectable persons he sent her daughter to her in -laws. A day earlier he came to know that his daughter had died and he suspected her in -laws to be responsible for her death which according to him be in connivance with the doctor. On receipt of this report police initiated proceedings under Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure and after obtaining post -mortem report they registered a case under Section 304 -A, Ranbir Penal Code against the Petitioner herein, which resulted in her prosecution. The case was produced in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu who has charged the Petitioner under Section 304 -A, Ranbir Penal Code.

(3.) I have perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. It does not come out from these statements that the Petitioner was in any manner negligent in causing the death of the deceased. The prosecution, it seems, has based their case on the medical report, i.e., post -mortem findings given by the Board of doctors. That finding is that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest as a result of surgical interference. Subsequently in regard to a query made by S.H.O. Police Station Pacca Danga the Board of doctors made clarification that surgical interference was done on genitalia of the deceased. They, however, declined to answer any other query regarding the negligence of the Petitioner in positive by stating that whether the death was due to negligence of the doctor or not was to be decided by the court and not by the Board of doctors and the Board was concerned only with the opinion regarding the cause of death. There is also on the file the explanation given by the Petitioner in regard to the query made by the investigating officer. In this query she has explained the circumstances which led to the death of the deceased. This letter written by the Petitioner to S.H.O. reads as under: