Ms. Atishaya Kaushal, Advocate
(9891952134/atishayakaushal@gmail.com)
"Sapna Ahuja vs State" 1999(5) Ad Delhi 407 Has ... on 8 February, 2010; IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN; METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, WEST, THC NEW DELHI; State Vs. Shubash Jolly & etc. FIR No.24/10 PS Paschim Vihar"
Facts:
The briefly stated facts as per the prosecution are that on 30.01.2010 Dr. A. P. Chauhan, Medical Director, Shri Action Balaji Medical Institute had given a written complaint to the SHO, PS Paschim Vihar whereby it was alleged that the accused persons had made a physical assault on Dr. Jyoti Sehgal, who was working as a Senior Consultant in Neurology department in their hospital.
It was stated that a patient namely Krishna Jolly was admitted at the said hospital and he was in a very serious condition. Despite the best efforts, he expired on 30.01.2010. The attendants of the patients telephoned Dr. Jyoti Sehgal and talked to her in very abusive language. She immediately rushed to the hospital driving the car on her own in spite of being 8 months pregnant. On her way to the ICU, she was assaulted physically by the attendants of the patients. A part of the incident was recorded in the CCTV Camera of the hospital.
On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered. Charge-sheet was filed by the IO under Section 3 & 4 of the Delhi Medicare Services Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions, (Protection against Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008. As per the charge-sheet, TIP of the accused Dheeraj Chauhan, Charu Jolly, Subhash Jolly, and Monika Kapoor was conducted, out of which the complainant identified Dheeraj Chauhan, Shubash Jolly, and Charu Jolly as the assailants. However, she failed to identify the accused Monika Kapoor.
Ld. counsel for accused persons conceded on the point of charge with respect to the accused except Monika Kapoor. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the accused Monika has neither been identified in the TIP proceedings nor her face is clearly visible in the CCTV Camera footage. Hence, she is entitled to be discharged. Ld. APP for has submitted that there is enough evidence on record to frame the charge against the accused persons.
It is a well-settled principle of law that at the stage of framing charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. If on the basis of material on record, the court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offense, the court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed with the trial. Our own Hon'ble High Court in a case titled as "Sapna Ahuja vs State" 1999(5) AD Delhi 407 has observed, "At the time of framing of charge FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency cannot be sieved through the caender of the finest gauzes to test its veracity. A roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighting the evidence is not expected or warranted at the stage of framing charge."
Held:
In the case at hand, all the accused persons are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the complainant, Dr. Jyoti Sehgal and assaulted her thereby causing simple hurt to her. However, the accused Monika Kapoor was not identified by the complainant during the TIP proceedings. Hence, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the said accused.
In view of the above discussion and in light of the above-mentioned judgment, the court is of the opinion that prima facie offense under Section 323/341 IPC and Section 4 of the Delhi Medicare Services Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions, (Protection against Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008 is made out against the accused persons namely Shubash Jolly, Charu Jolly, and Dheeraj Chauhan. Accused Monika Kapoor is discharged of all allegations.
The matter was listed for the framing of charge on 22.03.2016.
Comments
Post a Comment