Uttarakhand High Court
Kailash Singh Jangpangi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 22 July, 2015
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.886 of 2015
(under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Dr. Kailash Singh Jangpangi ..........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
1. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the applicant.
2. Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General, present for the State/respondent.
3. In Special Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2015 under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act where allegedly less than eight years girl was raped by a man. The accused was convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act. Meanwhile, during the proceeding in the trial, it has also come up that the present applicant before this Court who is a practicing doctor at Bageshwar (where the incident is alleged to have happened) had refused to examine the victim girl child. Consequently, the trial court has held, prima facie, the offence under Section 166B I.P.C. is made out against the present applicant and the procedure laid down under Section 357C Cr.P.C., has not been followed. Section 166B IPC and Section 357 Cr.P.C. are reproduced as below:-
Section 166B of I.P.C.-
"Section 166B of I.P.C.- Punishment for non- treatment of victim.- Whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, contravenes the provisions of Section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both."2
Section 357C. of Cr.P.C.-
"Section 357C of Cr.P.C.- Treatment of Victims.- All hospitals, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, shall immediately, provide the first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under section 326A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and shall immediately inform the police of such incident."
4. The present applicant was also called as a court witness in the court below and his statement has been annexed, wherein he categorically states that he does not admit that the victim was brought before him for examination. The learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar has, however, referred that the parents had brought to the girl child to the applicant.
5. Be that as it may, consequent to the order of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Bageshwar, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued summon to the present applicant under Section 166B I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that no offence under Section 166B I.P.C., is made out, as parents of the victim girl child never disclosed to the doctor i.e. the present applicant that the victim girl child is a rape victim. Prima facie, there is some substance in the contention of the applicant, as this fact that the victim has been subjected to rape was not disclosed by the parents even to the doctor who had subsequently examined the victim at Almora i.e., Dr. Manisha Pandey, and who was also examined by the trial court and the learned trial court come to the conclusion that since the parents of the girl child never disclosed this fact to her she has no criminal liability in the matter. On the same logic, therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant would argue that since this fact was never disclosed that the girl child is a victim of rape, 3 no offence under Section 166B is made out against him as well.
6. As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 188 of 2015, (State Vs. Kailash Singh Jangpangi), pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar shall remain stayed.
7. Respondents shall file their reply within a period of three weeks.
8. List this matter after four weeks.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.07.2015 Ankit