AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatra, in S.T. No. 103 of 1995, whereby the application filed by the petitioners u/s 227 of the Cr. P.C., for discharge, has been rejected by the learned Court below finding that there are sufficient materials for framing the charge for the offence under Sections 304 and 201 against the petitioners.
The petitioners have been made accused in Basista Nagar P.S. Case No. 9 of 1989, corresponding to G.R. No. 120 of 1989, which was instituted on the basis of the information given by the Choukidar, stating that wife of one Ruda Sao was pregnant and in absence of her husband, she felt headache and she went to the medical shop of the accused petitioner Ram Khelawan Sao, where he administered some medicine to the lady, but her condition deteriorated. Thereafter one injection was also administered by the petitioner Ram Khelawan Sao, whereupon her condition deteriorated further and she was taken by all the accused persons to Hunterganj for medical help, but the lady died. Thereafter all the accused persons, before arrival of her husband, burnt the dead body of the deceased in order to conceal the evidence. With these allegations, the FIR was lodged against the petitioners.
It appears that after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the petitioners filed their application for discharge, u/s 227 of the Cr. P.C., which has been dismissed by the Court below by order dated 10.7.2000.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and there is no material against them and the deceased died due to illness arising out of her pregnancy. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is no material against the petitioners in the case diary and even the husband of the deceased as also mother of the deceased have not spoken anything against them. Learned counsel has, accordingly submitted that it is a fit case for discharge of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
The impugned order shows that during investigation, the witnesses have stated that the deceased was administered medicine and injection by the petitioner Ram Khelawan Sao, whereafter her condition deteriorated. Admittedly Ram Khelawan Sao is not the Medical Practitioner, rather he was only having a medicine shop and he was not authorized to administer any medicine to the deceased. The witnesses have also stated that the other accused persons disposed of the dead body before the arrival of the husband of the deceased. From the impugned order, it appears that the statement of the mother was recorded, who has stated that her daughter was healthy and she was not suffering from any disease, She has also stated that due to the injection given to the deceased by the petitioner Ram Khelawan Sao, her condition deteriorated and thereafter she was taken to the Hunterganj for treatment, and ultimately she died. The impugned order clearly shows that the Court below has discussed the materials against the petitioners and came to the clear conclusion that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.