C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS AT MANCHERIAL
Present: U.Thirupathi, Prl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Mancherial. FAC:I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Mancherial. Tuesday this the 12th day of January, 2021
CC.NO. 52 of 2016
Between:
The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS CCC Naspur. …Complainant //And//
Varikilla Rajaiah, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 43 yrs, Occ: PMP, R/o H.No. 8-97/1, Vidyanagar, CCC Naspur …Accused
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri T.Anil Raj, learned counsel for accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.Police CCC Naspur have filed charge sheet against the accused/Varikilla
Rajaiah for the offence punishable U/Sec 304-A of IPC and Section 15 (2) (a) (3) of
Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956 in Cr.No. 102/2015.
2.Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that :-
On 14.7.2015 at about 08:00 hours the complainant/Sunkam Kranthi Kiran who is informant/son of the deceased went to PS CCC Naspur and lodged a report alleging that, his father/Sunkam Narahari Chari had been suffering with piles, hence on 13.07.2015 at 5.00 PM his father visited the Clinic of the RMP Doctor Rajaiah which is situated at Telangana Thalli Statue, where his father took injection. After a while complaining of dizziness immediately his father went to near by Singareni
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 2
Dispensary by taking RMP Doctor Rajaiah, from there his father made a phone call to him and informed about the same and asked them to come, on that they went to
Dispensary and seen his father was Struggling. Thereafter immediately he shifted his father to Singareni Area Hospital Ramakrishnapur, while undergoing treatment his father died at about 7:50 PM, there doctors informed to him that his father died due to injection given by the RMP doctor as same was reactioned. By alleging the above facts he lodged a report.
2.After lodging report, the Lw13/MD.Thaheruddin, HC of PS CCC Naspur registered crime vide Crime No. 102 of 2015 under section 304-A of IPC and he examined and recorded the statement of the informant/Lw1/Sunkam Kranthi Kumar and visited the Singareni Area Hospital Ramakrishnapur and examined and recorded the statements of Lw2/Sunkam Vijaya, Lw3/Sunkam Prudvi Raj, Lw4/Sunkam
Anusha, Lw5/Sunkam Sathyanarayana and photographed the dead body of the deceased and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of
Lw8/Sangathi Rama Krishna Swamy and Lw9/Kandula Shankaraiah, after completion of inquest subjected to the dead body for PME , the Medical Officer
Lw12/Dr.A.Aravind conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and preserved viscera for chemical analysis. Later Lw13/Md.Thaheruddin HC of PS
CCC Naspur examined and recorded the statements of Lw6/Arakala Rambabu and
Lw7/Bollavarapu Muralidhar Rao. Thereafter Lw14/S.Pramod Rao Sub Inspector of
Police CCC Naspur took up investigation and verified the investigation has been done by the Lw13 and found to be proper lines. On 17.10.2015 Lw14 issued 41-A
CrPC notice to the accused, but the accused did not comply the notice for which on 30-07-2015 Lw14 apprehended the accused/Varikilla Rajaiah and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of Lw10/Akkal Naresh and Lw11/Devara
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 3
Konda Laxman, accused admitted his guilt, further Lw14 seized one Stethoscope, one letter pad of the accused named as Shiva Krishna clinic, one empty distilled water tube, an injection bottle written as Taxim (250mg) containing a little quantity of liquid medicine with its small box and one Dora Single use Syringe with needle in the commission of the offence. Subsequently after completion of legal formalities
Lw14 arrested the accused and released him on bail. Further Lw14 collected FSL report and took final opinion from Lw12/Dr. Dr.A.Aravind who stated that the cause of the death is “Cardio Respiratory arrest due to myocardial infarction may be vegal shock”. After completion of the investigation of the Investigation
Officer/Lw14/S.Pramod Rao, his investigating reveals that the accused without any medical examination and without any tests he directly gave injection to the deceased, which the accused is not supposed to give any injection or treatment as he was not trained, he has not eligible for injecting the medicine, without taking proper care and diagnose to the patient simply he has given Taxim injection. Due to the negligent act by the accused i.e., giving Taxim injection to the deceased, it effected on the brain of the deceased and started struggling subsequently died. Thus Lw14 filed charge sheet for the offence punishable U/Sec 304-A of IPC and Section 15 (2)
(a) (3) of the Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956.
3.After filling charge sheet my Predecessor Officer has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec 304 -A of IPC and Section 15 (3) of the Indian
Medical Counsel Act, 1956 against accused and issued summons to accused.
4.After service of summons accused appeared before the court and he was furnished with the copies of documents U/Sec 207 CrPC. Later the accused was examined U/Sec 251 CrPC, by explaining the substance of the accusation for the
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 4 offence U/Sec 304 -A of IPC and Section 15 (3) of the Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956 for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Therefore issued summons to prosecution witnesses.
5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has got examined Pw1 to Pw10 , Ex P1 to Ex P11 are got marked and Material Objects i.e., MO-1 to MO-4 are got marked.
6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined U/Sec 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same reported being false, further reported no evidence on his behalf.
7. The Learned APP submitted that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and their testimony is inconsistent and corroborated with each other. Further submitted that deceased made oral dying declaration to the Pw1 and further submitted that the accused made extra judicial confession before the Pw4 and placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e., Parbin
Ali & another Vs State of Assam, Ram Lal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh the same are filed before the court. Further submitted accused not supposed to give Taxim injection as he is not skilled person and prayed for convict the accused.
8.The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that PW1 not mentioned in the Ex P1 that his father was treated by the accused. Whereas he stated before the court for the first time in his chief examination which is not believable, the same was admitted by him in the cross examination. Further submitted that the extra
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 5 judicial confession made before the Pw4 is not acceptable unless there is corroborative evidence of the other witnesses. Further submitted that the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of whom alleged to be recorded, they turned hostile did not support the case of the prosecution. Further submitted deceased has been treated at CCC Naspur dispensary because of such treatment the father of the PW1 i.e., deceased died . Furthermore the evidence of the prosecution witnesses not corroborated with each other. Hence prayed for acquittal of the accused.
9.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
10. Having heard both sides and on perusal of record the following points arose for my determination.
1) Whether the prosecution has proved case for the offence U/Sec 304-A of IPC against accused ?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved for the offence U/Sec 15 (3) of Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956 against accused ?
3) As to what result ?
P O I N T:
11.To substantiate the case of the prosecution Pw1 to Pw10 are examined wherein Pw1 who is son of the deceased deposed that in the year 2015 his father was suffering from piles decease, on 13-7-2015 at about 5:00 Pm his father went to
Shiva Krishna Clinic, RMP Doctor Rajaiah/accused herein situated at Telangana
Thalli Statue, CCC Naspur, the accused gave a injection to his father that injection re-actioned due to which his father suffered from heavy sweating, then accused admitted his father in Dispensary CCC Naspur and left from there. From there his father called him and informed that the accused gave an injection due to that he got re-actioned and suffering from heavy sweating. Immediately he along with his
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 6 mother and Lw4 went to Dispensary while going inside of the Dispensary in the meantime the accused coming in opposite direction, when he asked about the incident the accused replied that he gave an injection to his father due to that his father got illness so that the accused admitted his father in such Dispensary by saying so he left from there. Pw1 further deposed that then they went to their father and found his condition was serious, immediately they shifted his father in
Ambulance to Area Hospital Ramakrishnapur, there while were shifting him on to the stretcher his father died with oozing foam from his mouth then Doctor declared his father died. Further deposed that his father died due to negligent treatment of the accused by giving an injection, further Chief Medical Officer of Area Hospital,
Ramakrishanpur also confirmed that his father died due to the injection which was given by the accused and the same was re-actioned to his father. EX.P1/Report is
Marked through him. During the course of cross examination he deposed that his father himself alone went to RMP Doctor for treatment and his father informed to him with regard to visiting of RMP doctor for his treatment. Further he admitted that he has not stated before the Police that his father informed to his family members as he is visiting RMP Doctor for treatment. Further he admitted that he did not state
before the Police that the accused admitted his father to Dispensary and left from
there. The other suggestions are denied by the Pw1.
12.The Pw2/S.Pruthvi Raj who is another son of the deceased deposed that on 13-07-2015 he received phone call from Pw1 when he was at Hyderabad, by stating that his father was serious and asked him to come immediately to home.
Immediately he came to home and found his father died and enquired with his brother Pw1, he informed to him that on 13-07-2015 at about 5:00 PM his father went to ShivaKrishna Clinic RMP Doctor Rajaiah/accused herein situated at
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 7
Telangana Thalli Statue, CCC Naspur, the accused gave an injection to his father, that injection re-actioned due to which his father suffered from heavy sweating than the accused admitted his father at Dispensary at CCC Naspur and accused left from there, his father called Pw1 and informed that the accused gave an injection due to that he got re-actioned and suffering from heavy sweating. Immediately Pw1 along with his mother and Lw4 went to the Dispensary further informed that his father was serious as such they shifted his father to Singareni Area Hospital, B-Zone,
Ramakrishnapur for better treatment after shifting to B-Zone Hospital his father died with oozing foam from his mouth then doctor declared his father dead. Further deposed that his father died due to negligent treatment of the accused by giving an injection. During the course of cross examination he admitted that at the time of incident he was at Hyderabad. As such he does not know what was exactly happened, through Pw1 he came to know about the incident. The other suggestions are denied by him.
13.Pw3/S.Ramakrishna Swamy who is panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed that about three year back he received information from one singati laxminarayan by stating that the deceased S.Narahari Chari died in Area Hospital
Ramakrishnapur and further stated that he took one injection the same was reactioned. As a result of which he was admitted. On knowing the information he went to Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur and observed the deceased was in serious condition after his reaching while undergoing treatment with in half an hour the deceased died. After the dead body was shifted to Government Area Hospital,
Mancherial there Police conducted inquest panchanama of the deceased in his presence. EX.P2 inquest is marked through him. During the course of cross examination he deposed that the deceased and he worked together. Further admitted
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 8 that he does not know the contents of Ex P2.
14. Pw4/A.Ramesh Babu deposed that on 13-07-2015 at about 6:05 PM one
Narahari Chari/patient brought the accused/RMP Doctor Rajaiah. The RMP Doctor he himself told to Pw4 that he has given injection i.e., Taxim Injection and Decadran injection. Further he stated that patient suffering with piles and he was taking treatment by him regularly. Further RMP Doctor told to him that after giving Taxim injection he fell down with giddiness as such he brought the patient to there hospital, accordingly he examined the patient and found he is suffering with giddiness and sweating and he was unable to take breath normally. Further he deposed that in the meantime patient’s wife/Lw2and his son Pw1 came to
Dispensary. Thereafter he took ECG of the patient which is normal, pulse rate was 70 per minute, blood pressure was 100/70 which is low, blood sugar 161 milligrams which is normal. Subsequently Pw4 administered Oxygen to the patient and gave IV fluids, normal saline within 10 to 15 minutes Pw4 found itself Discoloration of rigids of fingers of patient, immediately he gave injection i.e., Hydro cortisone and
Avil. Later Pw4 referred the patient with oxygen and escort/ward boy to Area
Hospital, Ramakrishanpur.
15.During the course of cross examination he deposed that his duty timings were 8 AM to 12:30 PM and 4 PM to 6 PM. After duty timings the doctor left the hospital no doctors are available after 6 PM in the Dispensary. Witness further deposed that while he was going out the patient coming inside to the hospital, on the date of incident he was call duty and examined the patient. However he admitted the same was not stated before the Police. Further admitted that at the time of bringing the patient, the patient was in conscious state and he enquired with the patient about the treatment given to him by the RMP Doctor but the same was not stated before the
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 9
Police. Further he admitted the Taxim injection and Decadran injection which are readily available in the open market even without prescription, those are not life dangerous drugs. Further he deposed that he does not know the cause of the death of the deceased/Narahari Chary. Further admitted he did not provide to the Police mode of treatment of the patient. Further he denied the suggestion that because of their treatment deceased died. The other suggestions are denied by him.
16. Pw5/B.Muralidhar Rao who is Superintendent of Singareni Dispensary CCC
Naspur and who worked as Medical Superintendent in Area Hospital
Ramakrishnapur, deposed that on 13-07-2015 at about 7 PM one Narahari
Chary/patient brought to their area hospital, Ramakrishnapur in a ambulance by his family members, at the time of the patient was unable to walk as such he was shifted to trolley. While coming inside of the hospital near his room the patient was all of sudden collapsed, immediately he examined him and found blood pressure, pulse and respiration was not able to record. Then he shifted the patient to ICU and gave emergency treatment i.e., Adrenalin, Atropine and Oxyzen was continuing and he gave CPR, at the time of giving treatment the patient was not responded to treatment between 7:30 PM to 7:40 PM patient was declared died. Further he deposed that he came to know through patient family members that one RMP Doctor gave an injection i.e., Taxim to the patient as a result of which he was suffering with giddiness and sweating, initially he was shifted to CCC Naspur Dispensary. Later he was shifted to their hospital. During the course of cross examination he admitted that he has not verified the record of the patient and he denied other suggestions.
17.The Pw6/A.Naresh and Pw7/Devarakonda Laxman rao who are panch witnesses for confessional statement of the accused , have turned hostile did not
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 10 support the case of the prosecution.
18.Pw8/Dr.A.Aravind who conducted PME and issued final opinion deposed that on 14-07-2015 at about 10:15 AM he received requisition from PS CCC Naspur to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly he examined and found no external and internal injuries. Further he deposed that while he was conducting autopsy found pale area present over the posterior of heart (infarction).
Further he preserved stomach, kidney, liver and blood samples, the same have been sent to Forensic laboratory, Hyderabad. The report came from Forensic laboratory
Hyderabad on 23-09-2015, according that report all viscera and blood samples present Cefo Taxim antibiotic. Further he has given final opinion cause of the death of the deceased Cardio respiratory arrest due to Myocardial infarction may be vegal shock. Ex. P5/ PME, ExP6/ Final report are marked through him. During cross examination he added that Vegal shock means if any objects insert over the body of any person without his knowledge that may leads to cardiac arrest. Further he admitted that there is possibility of vegal shock if any object hit on the sensitive area on the body if he all of sudden falls on the ground. Further he admitted that Taxim injection readily available and is not a banned injection.
19.Pw9/Md.Thaheeruddin who registered the crime deposed that on 14-07-2015 at about 0800 hours Pw1 came to PS and filed a report. Accordingly he registered the case for the offence punishable U/Sec 304-A of IPC and issued FIR. Further deposed that he has recorded the statements of Pw1, Pw2, Lw2, Lw4 and Lw5.
Further deposed that he has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Pw3, Lw9 and photographed the dead body of the deceased and
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 11 drawn rough sketch. Further he examined and recorded the statements of Pw4 and
Pw5 and later he handed over the CD file to Pw10. During the course of cross examination he admitted that in Ex P1, Pw1 mentioned that the deceased died due to deteriorated an injection given by the accused but not mentioned due to the negligent act of the accused the deceased died. The other suggestions are denied by him.
20.Pw10/S.Pramod Rao deposed that on 16-07-2015 took up investigation from the Pw9 and verified the investigation done by him and found to be correct and proper lines. Further deposed that on 17-07-2015 he issued 41-A CrPC notice to accused but accused failed to comply, on 30-07-2015 he apprehended the accused at his house Shiva Krishna Clinic, on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed to offence and admitted his guilt then confessional statement of was recorded in the presence of Pw6 and Pw7 and seized one Stethoscope, one letter pad of the accused named as Shiva Krishna clinic, one empty distilled water tube, an injection bottle written as Taxim (250mg) containing a little quantity of liquid medicine with its small box and one Dora Single use Syringe with needle which the accused used in the commission of offence which are marked as MO-1 to MO-4.
Further deposed that he collected FSL report and took final opinion from the PW8 and after completion of the investigation he laid charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Section 15 (2) (a) (3) of Indian Medical
Counsel Act, 1956. During the course of cross examination he deposed that after 16 days later he has recorded the confessional statement of the accused and seized MO- 1 to MO4. Further he admitted that Taxim injection is not a prohibited one. Further he admitted that as per the Ex P6 there is no mentioning of that deceased died due to the Taxim injection. Further Pw10 added that the accused is not a doctor and he is
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 12 not supposed to give Taxim injection to the deceased. The other suggestions are denied by him.
21.On careful perusal of entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses it can be seen that the witnesses for confessional statement of the accused turned hostile.
However the rest of the witnesses supported the prosecution case. It is the duty of the court to look in to their evidence, whether their evidence is trustworthy and believable.
Section 304-A of IPC:-
C ausing death by negligence: Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
22.To prove under section 304-A of IPC:
The prosecution has to prove:-
(i) Death of the deceased.
(ii) Act done by the accused either rash or negligently and not amounting to culpable homicide.
Section 15 of Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956.
Right of person possessing qualifications in the schedules to be enrolled.
1. Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Medical Register.
2. Save as provided in section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register,—
(a) shall hold office as physician or surgeon or any other office (by
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 13 whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; 23.To avoid repetition the points no.1 and 2 are taken up for joint discussion.
24.To prove the death of the deceased: the prosecution has examined Pw1 and 2 who are sons of the deceased, Pw3 who is witness for inquest panchanama and
Pw8 who conducted PME and issued final opinion. Further Ex.P1,Ex.P5, Ex. P6 are proved the death of the deceased. Moreover there is no dispute with regard to death of the deceased. Hence this point is answered infavour of the prosecution.
25.The defence set up by the accused is that the accused never gave an injection to the deceased and because of the treatment given by the Pw4 and Pw6, the deceased died. Further learned counsel for the accused contended that the oral dying declaration of the deceased which allegedly made to PW1 and extra judicial confession of the accused which alleged to be made to Pw4 are can not be considered.
26.According to the prosecution the accused gave an injection negligently for which the deceased got re-actioned and deceased was admitted in CCC Naspur
Dispensary , later he died in subsequent Hospital. Whether the Accused has given
Taxim injection to deceased and admitted in the CCC Naspur Dispensary ?
To prove the same, the Pw1 stated that accused has given injection to his deceased father and he admitted the deceased father in the Dispensary. Further deposed that accused also informed the same. It is the contention of the counsel for the accused that the PW1 not stated that his deceased father informed to him about that as the accused has given injection, for the first time he deposed before the court, hence it
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 14 can not be considered. On perusal of ExP1 it is seen that ,the PW1 not stated above said fact in the Ex.P1. It is settled law that the FIR is not a encyclopedia , which is not consists each and every minute things , it contains only the occurrence of the offence and reasons thereto. The Ex.P1 specifically described that PW1’s father visited the Accused’s clinic,took injunction. Further it shows that the later doctor who treated the deceased informed to PW1 that the injection which was given by the accused, the same is deteriorated so his father died. Hence the arguments advanced by the defence counsel can not be considered. When it comes to oral dying declaration the judgment filed by the learned APP is not applicable to this case as both the case facts and circumstances are different. Further it is settled law that each case has to be decided on the facts of the such case. During cross examination of
PW4 it is suggested that at the time of bringing patient he was conscious, which is admitted by him. This suggestion clearly goes to show that before making oral dying declaration the deceased was conscious . Hence oral dying can be believed and taken into consideration.
27.Further defence counsel argued that the version of the Pw4 can not be believed as Pw4 and deceased were worked under the SCCL company limited , being co-employees the pw4 is deposing in favour of the prosecution. The deceased and PW4 though worked in the same company , there professions are completely different. Further more there is No suggestion to Pw4 that he has any enmity with the accused. So this can not be accepted. In the evidence of the PW4 he categorically stated that , the accused told to him that after giving Taxim injection to the deceased, he fell down with giddiness as such he brought the patient to their
Dispensary. The suggestion not told to PW4 denied by him. Further argued that the extra judicial confessional statement of accused can not be considered unless
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 15 supported by other evidence. The learned APP has filed Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Judgment vide Ram Lal Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh wherein in para
no.14 held that:
It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra Judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. In Madan gopal Kakkad V. Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC 204, this court after referring to Piara Singh and Others V.State of Punjab (1977) 4
SCC 452 held that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated.
28. As per the above said Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment, that the extra judicial confession of the accused need not in all cases be corroborated. If RMP/ Accused had not given any injection to the accused , he would not have visited the dispensary and would not have admitted the deceased in the dispensary. Further herein No suggestion to PW4 as to that the RMP / Accused had not visited the dispensary and not admitted the deceased therein. It is suggested to PW4 that he has enquired with the patient about the treatment given to him by the RMP doctor but the same was not stated before the police. This suggestion clearly goes to show that deceased was treated by RMP. Furthermore there is no explanation from the RMP/ Accused as to under what circumstances he had to visited the dispensary. Moreover the Pw1 and
Pw4 clearly stated that the accused gave an injection and admitted the deceased in the Dispensary. Though they were cross examined at length nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of the PW1 and PW4. Hence this court did not find anything to discard the evidence of the PW4. The extra judicial which is made to
PW4 is considered. Accordingly the prosecution has proved that the Accused has
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 16 given Taxim injection to the deceased and admitted the deceased in the CCC
Naspur Dispensary.
29. Further counsel for the accused argued that because of the treatment given by the PW4 and PW6 only the deceased died to evade his accusation, he is deposing false. As per the prosecution version by the time the patient brought to the
Dispensary he was already suffering with giddiness and heavy sweating. The same has been told by the accused to PW4. More over as per testimony of PW4, deceased was unable to take breath normally. It appears that the PW4 has treated the deceased to get back him to normal position , thereafter he referred the deceased to higher center, where deceased died. Hence because of the treatment of PW4 and PW6 only deceased died is can not be accepted.
30.Whether the deceased died due to rash or negligent act of the Accused?
The evidence of the PW8 discloses that deceased died due to Cardio respiratory arrest due to Myocardial infarction may be vegal shock. During cross examination of the PW8 he clearly stated that the Vegal shock means if any objects insert over the body of any person without his knowledge that may leads to cardiac arrest.
Admittedly accused is not a qualified doctor and being RMP (Rural Medical
Practitioner) he is not supposed to give Taxim injection to the deceased as the accused is not a skilled person.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab it is held
that in para number 48(3):
( 3 ) A professional may be hold liable for negligence on one of the two findings : either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed or he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 17 competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
31. As per the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be held that even professional is also held liable for negligence, if he is not possessed requisite skill which he professed to have possessed. The case at hand , the accused herein not even a professional and qualified person to assume that that he is possessed requisite skill that is of his profession have. The accused being RMP he is not a qualified and skilled person and he does not have the requisite skill to administer the Taxim Injection. Further it can be held that without examining the deceased properly, without proper care and precautions, Accused administered the
Taxim injection to the deceased, which led to death of the deceased. In view of the above discussion and circumstances stated supra , this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly Accused is convicted.
32.Therefore, the Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A of I.P.C and Section 15 (3) of Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956, and he is convicted for the same under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer after correction and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of January, 2021.
SD/-
Prl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Mancherial. FAC:I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Mancherial.
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 18
33.The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence for which he stated that he is the bread winner of his respective family and prayed the court to take a lenient view. Having heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned
A.P.P. Having regard to the nature of the offences proved against the accused and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to invoke provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused. However, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take some lenient view while awarding punishment.
34. IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A of I.P.C and Section 15 (3) of Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956, and he is convicted for the same under section 255(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eighteen (18) months for the offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. Further, the accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months for the offence punishable under section 15 (3) of Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956. Both sentences shall run concurrently. The marked case properties i.e., MO-1 to MO-4 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal period. No order under 428 of CrPC.
35.The accused is informed his right of legal aid, however he has declined for free legal aid stating he has already engaged an advocate. The office is directed to supply free copy of Judgment to accused forth with.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer after correction and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of January, 2021.
Prl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Mancherial. FAC:I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Mancherial.
C.C.No. 52 of 2016 Page 19
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:
PW-1:S.Kranthi Kiran/ Complainant - None - PW-2:S.Pruthvi Raj/Circumstantial Witness PW-3:S.Ramakrishna Swamy /Panch Witness for Inquest PW-4:A.Ramesh Babu/Circumstantial Witness PW-5:B.Muralidhar Rao/Circumstantial Witness PW-6: A.Naresh/Panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama PW-7:Devakonda Laxman Rao/Panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama PW-8: Dr.A.Aravind/Medical Officer PW-9: MD.Taheeruddin/1st Investigating Officer PW-10: S.Pramod Rao/Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:
Ex. P-1 : Report -Nil- Ex. P-2 : Inquest Panchanama Ex. P-3 : Signature of Pw6 Ex. P-4 : Signature of Pw7 Ex. P-5 : PME Report Ex. P-6 : FSL Report Ex. P-7 : FIR Ex. P-8 : Photographs of the deceased along with CD. Ex. P-9 : Rough Sketch Ex. P-10 : Confessional statement and seizure panchanama of the accused.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO-1: Stethoscope MO-2:Two empty prescription papers MO-3:One empty distilled water tube. MO-4: Used Syringe with needle
Prl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Mancherial. FAC:I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Mancherial.