High Court · 2012

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.799 of 2008 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, registered for offences punishable under Sections 338, 201 and 202 r/w 34 IPC, so far as the petitioners (A-2 and A-3) are concerned.

2. Whereas the petitioners herein are A-2 and A-3 the

first respondent herein is the complainant in the Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the calendar case.

3. It is necessary to note briefly the prosecution version which is as follows. During the intervening night of 21/22-07-2005, one late E. Janaiah (hereinafter referred as “deceased”) who was working as Gangman in the 7th unit of S.C. Railway being on track checking duty was proceeding towards Ippaguda from Raghunathapalli on (UP) line. At about 12-00 midnight, A-1 in the case namely Dasari Shoban Babu, being the driver (Operator) of Duometic Machine No.8062 (for short ‘machine’) came driving that machine on the same track from Raghunathapalli to Ippaguda. He gave dash to the deceased due to rash and negligent driving of the machine at high speed, as a result of which the deceased received injuries. Then the deceased was taken to the Railway Hospital, Kazipet and from there to the MGM Hospital, Warangal and from there to the Railway Hospital, Secunderabad and from there to the Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. He was given treatment there from 22-07-2005 to 14-08-2005. Later he was sent back to the Railway Hospital, Secunderabad, and there he underwent treatment for 2½ months more i.e. upto 30-10-2005, on which date he died, under the supervision of A-2, Dr. M. Ravi Kumar. It is alleged that A-2 failed to make it as Medico Legal Case (MLC) despite having knowledge about all the relevant formalities. Similarly A-3, Dr. R. Narasimha Rao, who also attended on the deceased, failed to give necessary information to the local police or GRP about the death of the deceased having knowledge about the relevant factors. On the other hand, A-3 issued death certificate confirming the death of the deceased and mentioning the cause of death as due to RTA head injury. It is further alleged that A-2 and A-3, instead of taking necessary care for conducting inquest and postmortem examination over the dead body, handed over the dead body to the kith and kin of the deceased with the intention of screening the relevant evidence to constitute MLC. It is also alleged that A-4 and A-5, railway employees, also involved in screening the evidence. Further on receipt of the information and after recording the statement of the defacto complainant in the case namely, Dara Satyanarayana, another gagman, the crime was registered in the Railway Police Station, Warangal, for the offences punishable under Sections 238, 201 and 202 read with 34 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 contends that pertinently A-2 issued death certificate to the effect that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory failure, which is not disputed. The deceased was under the medical treatment in different hospitals for about three months subsequent to the accident. As such there was no need to conduct any inquest or postmortem examination over the dead body. According to him, necessary medical record was maintained for the treatment of the deceased apart from issuing the death certificate. He claims that under these circumstances, it cannot be said that A-2 and A-3 involved in screening necessary evidence to constitute MLC. He also claims that even supposing that there was suppression of evidence with regard to the treatment and death of the deceased, in such a case also, the question of applicability of Section 201 of IPC does not arise at all because by doing so, no help has been rendered to anybody including A-1, who is alleged to have caused the injuries to the deceased. Ultimately, he seeks for quashing the proceedings so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has ascertained that A-2 should have conducted necessary inquest and postmortem examination over the dead body and maintained treatment record. Further he along with A-3 should not have handed over the dead body to the kith and kin of the deceased without doing those examinations and by not doing so and also by not maintaining the treatment record, necessary evidence to constitute MLC was screened. According to him it was done so in fact only for the benefit of A-1 with the intention of helping him to come out of the charges which could have been levelled against him. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the application.

6. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

7. Significantly the deceased died after undergoing treatment in various hospitals for a period of three months from the date of accident. In fact a copy of medical record said to be maintained in the hospital is filed before the Court. It appears to be a true one. So it cannot be said that A-2 and A-3 are guilty of not maintaining necessary medical record. It is also important that A-3 admittedly issued the death certificate to the effect that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory failure. When he underwent treatment in various hospitals for three months, there was no need of conducting any inquest or postmortem examination over the dead body, and it was suffice to issue death certificate. Apart from that because of long gap in between the date of accident and the date of death, it may be difficult to conclude that the death occurred by the impact of the accident only. Even otherwise the entire medical record including the death certificate issued by A-3 can be taken into consideration for the purpose of analyzing whether A-1 can be prosecuted for the charge under Section 304 of IPC. In the circumstances of the case, it is not proper to prosecute A-2 and A-3 for the alleged charges or charge on the ground of screening necessary evidence for the benefit of A-1 or any other person.

8. So I see merits in the application. Ultimately the proceedings pending against A-2 and A-3 are liable to be quashed.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.799 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. Date: 14-09-2012 YCR _________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J