Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VARDI CHAND versus STATE & ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VARDI CHAND v STATE & ANR - CRLR Case No. 642 of 2005 [2007] RD-RJ 423 (18 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR ::::

ORDER

Vardi Chanda vs

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

S.B. CR. REVISION PETITION NO.642/2005

AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.1.2004

PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CHIEF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MAWALI, SHRI SUSHIL

KUMAR JAIN, RJS IN CRIMINAL REGULAR CASE

NO.45/2003

DATE OF ORDER : 18.1.2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI G.S. SARRAF

Shri Shambhoo Singh,for the petitioner.

Shri S.N. Tiwari, Public Prosecutor.

Shri Pradeep Shah, for the respondent no.2.

BY THE COURT:

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 2.1.2004 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawali whereby he acquitted the respondent no.2 for the offence under

Section 304-A IPC.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Vardichand PW- 1 lodged a report at 11.45 AM on 6.11.1999 at the Vallabhnagar

Police Station that in the morning of 5.11.1999 a nurse of the

Thamla hospital took his wife Sunder Devi to Vallabhnagar hospital for family planning operation where the respondent no.2 performed the operation. When her condition deteriorated she was taken to hospital at Udaipur where she died during treatment. After necessary investigation, a challan under

Section 304A IPC was filed by the Vallabhnagar Police Station against the respondent no.2. When particulars of the the offence were stated to the respondent no.2, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. The respondent no.2 in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was a competent surgeon and this case has been instituted only to extort money from him. The respondent no.2 did not examine anyone in his defence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent no.2 of the charge under Section 304A IPC. Hence the husband of the deceased has filed this revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

Tirthalata PW-2 is the nurse who took Sunder Devi to the

Vallabhnagar hospital. She says that she took Sunder Devi to the hospital for family planning operation and at that time

Sunder Devi was pregnant and was bleeding. Ramesh PW-4 is the male nurse, who was present at the time of operation performed by the respondent no.2. He says that the respondent no.2 examined and confirmed that Sunder Devi was bleeding because of perforation in the womb and the bleeding did not stop even after stitching. He says in cross-examination that the respondent no.2 performed operation to save the life of Sunder

Devi because otherwise she would have died then and there on account of profuse bleeding. Dr. Mamata Rajvanshy PW-11 states that on the relevant date she was medical officer in PHC

Vallabhnagar. She says that she examined Sunder Devi brought by the nurse Tirthalata and thereafter the respondent no.2 examined Sunder Devi who opined that the bleeding could be on account of perforation in the womb. She says that the respondent no.2 then performed operation but when the bleeding did not stop, Sunder Devi was referred to Udaipur hospital. She says that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the respondent no.2.

Dr. Gautam Damor PW-6 is the doctor who gave first aid to Sunder Devi when she was taken to Udaipur hospital. He says that he does not know on account of whose negligence,

Sunder Devi died. In cross-examination he stated that the respondent no.2 is a competent surgeon. Dr. Vimlesh Mathur

PW-7 was Professor in Zanana hospital, Udaipur at the relevant time. Dr. Mathur PW-7 says that in her opinion it is not correct to think that the deceased died on account of negligence of any one because perforation in the womb occurs in spite of full care and caution and for this doctor cannot be held guilty.

Dr. Manohar Paliwal PW-9 and Dr. Usha Kinra are the members of the Board, who performed post mortem on the body of the deceased Sunder Devi. Both of them have stated that the cause of death of Sunder Devi was bleeding on account of perforation in the womb. Dr. Paliwal PW-9 has stated that DNC

(performed by the respondent no.2) was complete and the stitches were in right condition. Dr. Usha Kinra PW-10 in her cross-examination has stated as under: -

"Exp-13 , -

Ex.P-13 % %

- -

- % Ex-

A/13 % % ! 4 !

- !"

There is thus no evidence on record to prove that the deceased Sunder Devi died because of the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.2. No witness says that the respondent no.2 acted rashly and negligently. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent no.2. The learned Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate Mawali has discussed the evidence in right perspective and I have no reason to take a different view in the matter.

Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed.

(G.S. SARRAF), J. cpgoyal/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.