Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 154/2001, Ps : Roop Nagar State vs Dr. Vinod & Ors. on 18 September, 2019

FIR No. 154/2001,   PS : Roop Nagar         State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.


    IN THE COURT OF MM­08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
        TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.

Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :

State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.
FIR No. 154/2001
PS : Roop Nagar
U/s 304­A/34 IPC
Date of Institution                               : 03.12.2002
Date of reserving of order                        : 09.09.2019
Date of Judgment                                  : 18.09.2019
CNR No. DLCT02­000129­2002
JUDGMENT

  1.         Serial No. of the case               : 290653/2016
  2.         Name of the Complainant              : Yudvir Singh
                                                    Chouhan
  3.         Date of incident                     : 22.05.1997
  4.         Name of accused person               :
             1. Dr. Vinod Thukral S/o Late M.L.
             Thukral, R/o 2/29­C, Lawrance Road,
             Delhi
             2. Dr. Chitra Bhatnagar W/o Sh.
             Jatinder Bhatnagar, R/o B­1/2, Model
             Town Delhi



  Page 1 of 22                   MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019
 FIR No. 154/2001,       PS : Roop Nagar         State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.


                3. Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Gupta W/o Dr. A.K.
                Gupta, R/o C­3/11, Rana Pratap Bagh,
                Delhi
                4. Parmarth Mission Hospital Society,
                23/7, Shakti Nagar, Delhi through AR.
     5.         Offence for which chargesheet
                was filed                     : S304­A/34
                                                IPC
     6.         Offence for which charge
                has been framed               :S. 304­A IPC
     7.         Plea of accused               : Not guilty
     8.         Final Order                   : Acquitted
     9.         Date of Judgment              :18.09.2019

BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:

1. Dr.Vinod Thukral, Dr.Chitra Bhatnagar, Dr. Asha Gupta and Parmarth Mission Hospital Society have been charge­sheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 304­A, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

2. The case of the prosecution is that Ms. Sapna (Since deceased) was admitted in Parmarth Mission Hospital on 22.05.1997. She had given birth to a child through cesarean. The child was taken to Jaipur Golden Page 2 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

Hospital, Rohini as there was no nursery/incubator at Parmarth Mission hospital. The child had died three days after his admission in the Jaipur Golden Hospital. On 22.05.1997 Dr. Chitra Bhatnagar and Dr. Vinod Thukral had informed the complainant that due to infection, uterus of his wife was to be removed. Wife of the complainant, Ms. Sapna (since deceased) was discharged from hospital on 27.05.1997. After sometime she started complaining pain in her abdomen. She was again admitted in hospital on 22.03.1998 and she was discharged on 26.03.1998. She was again admitted in the hospital on 24.05.1998. However, in the morning of 26.05.1998 the complainant was asked to take his wife to some other hospital. Therefore, the complainant had taken his wife to Hindu Rao Hospital. She was operated in the said hospital on the same day. During operation it was discovered that one sponge with a tag was left in the abdomen of Ms. Sapna. She had expired on 26.05.1998. The police did not take any action on complaint of the complainant. Therefore, he approached the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the order of the Court, present FIR was Page 3 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

registered. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused were charge­sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 304­A/34, Indian Penal Code.

3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, notice for the offence punishable under Section 304­ A IPC was framed against the accused persons. The notice was served upon the hospital through its AR. It was read over to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.

5. PW­1 Satender Kumar Tyagi is the official from the Hindu Rao Hospital. He has deposed that on 30.03.2002, he had handed over all the original medical record of deceased Sapna to IO SI Mahabir Singh vide forwarding letter Ex. PW1/A. The documents are Ex. PW1/B1 to Ex. PW1/B26.

Page 4 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019

FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

6. PW­2 Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sub­registrar, Birth and Death, Civil Line has produced the record of death of Sapna. The relevant page of the register at Sr No. 675 dated 12.06.1998 is Ex. PW2/A (OSR).

7. PW­3 HC Sikandar Singh was the DO who had recorded the FIR No. 154/01, PS : Roop Nagar, which is Ex. PW3/A (OSR). His endorsement is Ex. PW3/B.

8. PW­4 Yudhbir Singh Chouhan is the complainant. He has deposed that on 22.05.1997, he had got admitted his pregnant wife Ms. Sapna at Parmarth Mission Hospital where she had given birth to a male child. Due to non­availability of incubator the child was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi and the infant had died after 2­3 days. Her wife had felt some pain in stomach. He kept visiting Parmarth Mission Hospital for follow up treatment of his wife. On 24.05.1998 Ms.Sapna was again got admitted in Parmarth Mission Hospital and she was discharged on next day. Thereafter, he had taken his wife to Hindu Rao Hospital where she was operated by the doctors. The doctors had told him that some foreign bodies were found in the stomach of his wife. His wife had Page 5 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

died on 26.05.1998. However, he did not know what was the cause of the death of his wife.

9. The witness has proved his complaint Ex. PW4/A. The witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP and he was cross­examined by him. During his cross­ examination he has stated that he had made the allegations against the accused persons on the basis of statement of the doctor of Hindu Rao Hospital.

10. PW­5 Retd. Dr. K.L. Sharma was part of the Medical Board. He has deposed that a medical board was constituted on 18.02.2002 by the order of Additional Secretary GNCT Delhi, to review the record and to submit a report. The Board comprises Dr. Sunil Kumar, Surgeon, Dr. Mamta Pandey and PW­5. No postmortem examination was conducted. The detailed report was given which is Ex. PW5/A.

11. PW­6 Dr. Mamta Pandey was also member of the medical board. She has deposed similar to PW­5.

12. PW­7 Dr. P.K.Anand has deposed that he runs Anand Imaging Centre at Pitampura. On 20.02.1998, he had taken the X­ray of patient Sapna and gave the report Page 6 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

which is Ex.PW1/B19.

13. PW­8 Sh. Ashok Kumar was an employee of Parmarth Mission Hospital. He has deposed that on 22.05.1997, Ms. Sapna wife of the complainant was operated by accused Dr. Vinod Thukral. Accused Dr.Chitra Bhatnagar had also operated the said lady. That lady had given birth to a child through Caesarian. He was inside the Operation theater as assistant during the operation.

14. PW­9 Inspector Ritesh Kumar was the last IO. He has deposed that he had arrested accused Dr. Vinod and Dr. Chitra on 21.09.2002 vide memo Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B respectively. He had arrested Dr. Asha Gupta on 17.10.2002 vide memo Ex.PW9/C. He had prepared the challan and filed in the Court.

15. PW­10 Inspector Mahavir Singh was the Second IO. He has deposed that he had moved an application to Histo pathology department of HRH Delhi for certain clarification. The application is Ex. CW10/A. He had obtained the report from the hospital. He had also collected the original documents from Hindu Rao Hospital regarding the treatment of Sapna. He had also collected Page 7 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

the histopathology form with with histopathology report from Hindu Rao Hospital which is Ex.PW10/B. He had also obtained the Anesthesia record register from Parmarth Mission Hospital for the year 1997 which is Ex. PW10/C. He had also obtained the record sheet number 05171 alongwith discharge slip of deceased Sapna which is Ex. PW10/D. He had sent those documents to Medical Board. He had given the clarification to Medical Board which are Ex. PW10/E. Thereafter, he was transferred.

16. PW­11 Inspector Jitender Singh was the first IO. He has deposed that he had got registered the present case. He had moved an application to the Hindu Rao Hospital to obtain the record related to present case. He had taken the photocopies of those documents. He had moved application to Dr. R.L.Singhi of HRH for obtaining opinion on the role of Sponge in the death of Sapna. The application is Ex.PW11/A. He had seized documents from Parmarth Mission Hospital which are Ex.PW11/E (colly 53 pages). On 04.10.2001, Dr. R.L. Singhi had given his opinion which is Ex. PW 11/E. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses. He had moved an application Page 8 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

for constitution of Medical Board. The copy of the same is Ex.PW11/D. Thereafter, he was transferred.

17. PW­12 Dr. C.L. Verma has deposed that he was General Duty Medical Officer in HRH on 25.05.1998. On that day, Dr. O.P. Mahajan, Sr. Resident doctor had performed surgery on patient Sapna. He had assisted the doctor. Dr.R.L.Singhi, the Unit In­charge of Surgery Department had visited the operation theater during the surgery. After surgery OT notes were prepared by Dr.O.P. Mahajan in consultation with Dr. R.L. Singhi. He did not play any role or part in conducting the surgery upon Sapana by Dr.O.P.Mahajan. Surgery was conducted upon the patient for reasons of perforation and peritonitis. During the operation he had observed that there was pus, gas, and faecal matter inside the abdominal cavity. There was a perforation inside the intestine which was repair after the surgery was over he was relieved by Dr. O.P. Mahajan from his duty.

18. The witnesses were cross­examined. The accused persons admitted various documents mentioned herein­after. documents No. MRD 13586 dated Page 9 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

26.05.1998 which is Ex. A­1, MRP 13586 is Ex. A­2, OPD No. 16810 of deceased Ms. Sapna is Ex. A­3, Blood bank receipt is Ex. A­4, Receipt of Central Blood Bank dated 25.06.1998 is Ex. A­5, Central Blood Bank of MCD dated 25.05.1998 is Ex. A­6, Receipt of department of Pathology clinical chemistry requisition dated 26.05.1998 of patient Sapna is Ex. A­7, Receipt of department of Pathology Haematology dated 26.05.1998 of patient Sapna is Ex. A­ 8, Receipt of department of Pathology clinical chemistry requisition dated 26.05.1998 of patient Sapna is Ex. A­9, report of Radiology Parmarth Mission Hospital of deceased Sapna is Ex. A­10, discharge slip of Parmarth Mission Hospital Ex. A­11, continuation sheet of Parmarth Mission Hospital is Ex. A­12, Ultrasound report dated 25.02.1998 is Ex. A­13, Central Blood Bank form is Ex. A­14, Discharge slip of patient Sapna of Parmarth Mission Hospital is Ex. A­15. Authorization slip dated 22.05.1997 of Parmarth Mission Hospital is Ex. A­16 & Ex. A­17, Anaesthesia record of patient Sapna of Parmarth Mission Hospital is Ex. A­18, Treatment and progress of patient Sapna are Ex. A­19 & Ex. A­20, Blood supply report of Page 10 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

blood bank dated 26.05.1997 is Ex. A­21. Crossmatch Data Form of Immuno haematology is Ex. A­22. Blood supply report of blood bank organization dated 22.05.1997 are Ex. A­23 & Ex. A­24, Opinion of Dr. R.L.Singhi dated 04.10.2001 Ex. A­25 and summary record of MRD No. 13586 of patient Sapna by Dr. R.L Singhi is Ex. A­26.

19. The prosecution evidence was closed. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. They would state that they were falsely implicated. They had acted as per medical procedure with all due care and procedure.

20. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.

21. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It has been proved that the accused Parmarth Mission Hospital Society did not have sufficient arrangements in the hospital and therefore the child had died. The hospital was negligent in not having proper facility for keeping a new born baby. Further, it is also shown that Dr. Chitra Page 11 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

Bhatnagar, Dr. Vinod Thukral and Dr. Asha Gupta had performed a surgery upon Ms. Sapna (Since deceased). They had left a sponge in her body which resulted in her death. Hence, all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304­A IPC have been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed that the accused may be convicted.

22. Ld. defence counsel on the other hand would argue that the accused are innocent. Ld. Counsel for accused Dr. Vinod and Dr. Chitra Bhatnagar would argue that they had conducted the surgery with all due care. No such sponge was left by them. It was a false story prepared by the doctors of Hindu Rao Hospital to conceal the fact of their failure to complete the surgery properly. No such sponge was ever preserved. It was not sent to FSL for examination. It was not produced before the Medical Board. No postmortem of the deceased was conducted. The medical board had given his report on the basis of presumpting questions put to it by the IO who was not a qualified person. The death of the patient was due to cardiac arrest. She was suffering with TB. The doctor who Page 12 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

had performed the surgery at Hindu Rao Hospital had not come in the witness box. Further, the patient was also operated at Santom Hospital after his surgery at Parmarth Mission Hospital. If it is presumed, even though not admitted, that any sponge was found inside the body of Ms.Sapna (since deceased), it must have been left in her body during surgery at Santom Hospital. There is no material on Court record to prove beyond reasonable doubts that any of the accused doctors had acted rashly or negligently during the surgery. Ld. Counsel for the accused Dr. Asha Gupta would also argue that she was not even named in the complaint. She had not performed any surgery upon Ms. Sapna. There is no evidence against her. Hence, it is prayed that the accused persons may be acquitted.

23. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.

24. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of Page 13 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court

25. In the present case, the accused have been charged with the offence punishable under Section 304­A, IPC. It has been alleged by the prosecution that due to rash or negligent act of the accused hospital the child of the complainant had died. Further, during the surgery, the accused doctor had left sponge inside the abdomen of Ms. Sapna (Since deceased) which resulted in her death. Thus it is alleged that the doctors and the hospital had acted negligently or rashly and failed to take due care and attention in administering treatment to Smt. Sapna (Since deceased).

26. The accused persons have not denied that the complainant had got admitted his wife Ms. Sapna (since deceased) in Parmarth Hospital on 22.05.1997. They have Page 14 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

also not denied that she was operated in the said hospital and she had given birth to a child. The Court has to decide whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the doctors and the hospital were acted so rashly or negligently that they can be held liable for the an offence punishable under Section 304­A IPC. Section 304A, IPC reads as under:

"whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to the culpable homicide, shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both".

27. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances. Negligence is a tort as well as a crime and can be used for the purpose of fastening the defendant with the liability under a civil law Page 15 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

and at times under the criminal law. To fasten the liability in a criminal law, the degree of the negligence has to be higher than that of negligence to fasten the liability for damages in civil law.

28. In the present case, first I shall take the allegation against the hospital that it had acted rashly or negligently by not providing necessary nursery/incubator to the maternity home which was a basic requirement of a gynecological department in the hospital. Perusal of record would show that during his examination in chief PW­4 complainant Yudvir Singh Chouhan has stated that due to non­availability of incubator, the child was shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi where he had died after 2­3 days. However, what was the reason of the death of the child is not available on the Court Record. The fact that the hospital did not have incubator is not a fact sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the child had died due to any rash or negligent act of the hospital. Even the complainant himself has stated that his child had survived at Jaipur Golden Hospital for next 2­3 days. In the absence of sufficient material on record, I am of the opinion that Page 16 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

the hospital can not be held liable for any rashness or negligence as alleged against it for non­availability of the incubator.

29. It is also alleged against the hospital its doctors had acted rashly or negligently during the surgery of Ms. Sapna (since deceased). I am of the considered opinion that the hospital can be held liable if the doctors are found liable for the said offence.

30. It has been alleged against Dr. Vinod, Dr. Chitra Bhatnagar and Dr. Asha Gupta while performing a surgery upon Ms.Sapna (since deceased) they acted rashly or negligently and left a sponge in her abdomen. It is alleged that during her surgery at Hindu Rao Hospital, the doctors had found the said sponge inside the abdomen and they had removed the same. However, the patient could not be saved. Now the best piece of evidence was the said sponge. However, it was never preserved by the concerned doctor of the Hindu Rao Hospital. It was not sent to FSL for forensic examination so as to find out the age of the sponge and to ascertain that it was recovered from the body of the patient. The said doctor who had performed Page 17 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

the surgery had allegedly removed the alleged sponge has not entered into the witness box. Doctor C.L. Verma (PW­

12) had assisted Dr. O.P. Mahajan who had performed the surgery on patient Sapna (since deceased). In his testimony the witness did not state that any such sponge was found in the intestine of the patient.

31. Perusal of the record would also show that no postmortem of the body of deceased Sapna was conducted in the present case. The doctors, PW­5 Dr. K.L. Sharma and PW­6 Dr. Mamta Pandey have stated in their testimony that no postmortem examination was conducted in this case. They have also stated that at the time of seeking opinion of the board, no foreign body as mentioned by the pathologist Hindu Rao Hospital was shown to them and it was informed that a foreign body was destroyed.

32. PW­5 Dr. K.L. Sharma has stated one important fact in his cross­examination. He has admitted that it was mandatory on the part of treating doctors to register an MLC in case of recovery of any foreign body at the time of surgery. It was also mandatory to preserve the foreign Page 18 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

body so recovered and to send the same in a sealed cover alongwith blood sample to FSL to confirm that the foreign body was recovered from inside the body part of the patient. However, in the present case, no MLC is shown to be prepared. The alleged foreign body was also not preserved and it was not sent to FSL to establish the allegation. All these circumstances create reasonable doubts on recovery of any foreign body/sponge from the intestine of Ms. Sapna (since deceased) as alleged. Even the complainant PW­4 Yudvir Singh Chouhan has stated in his cross­examination that the doctor at Hindu Rao Hospital had never shown him any foreign body which they had claimed to recover from the body of her wife. Hence, I am of the opinion that it can not be held beyond reasonable doubts that a sponge was found inside the intestine of patient Sapna (since deceased) during her surgery at Hindu Rao Hospital. Due to said reason, it can also not be said beyond reasonable doubts that the accused doctors and the accused hospital had acted rashly or negligently in performing the surgery and they left any sponge in the intestine of the patient.

Page 19 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019

FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

33. It is also worth noting here that after her surgery at Parmarth Mission Hospital on 22.05.1997, she was also operated at Santom Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi. PW­4 complainant Yudhvir Singh Chouhan has stated in his cross­examination that his wife was subjected to some abdominal surgical procedure at Santom Hospital. He has also stated that the surgery at Santum Hospital was considerably major in nature and it had taken place for about 2­3 hours. PW­5 Dr. K.L. Sharma has stated in his cross­examination that on the basis of record, it was revealed to him that the patient was operated upon at Santom Hospital in March, 1998 and that the surgery was pertaining to the abdomen of the deceased. All these facts and circumstances are sufficient to show, on the preponderance of probabilities, that patient Sapna (since deceased) had also undergone a major surgery of abdomen at Santom Hospital after her surgery at Parmarth Mission Hospital which is in question here. I find merit in the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel, that even if it is presumed that any foreign body was found as alleged, there were chances that it might have been left by the Page 20 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

doctor at Santom hospital during the said surgery. No record of the surgery at Santom Hospital has been produced in the Court. However, the material on record is sufficient to show that there was an intervening surgery after surgery in question at Parmarth Mission Hospital and before the patient was operated at Hindu Rao Hospital. The possibility of rashness of negligence at the part of the doctors of Santom hospital also can not be ruled out if it is presumed that a foreign body was really found inside the abdomen of Ms. Sapna (Since deceased) during her surgery at Hindu Rao Hospital. However, it is mere a presumption. In the absence of the record related to the foreign body/sponge and its match with the body of the patient Sapna (since deceased) no further discussion is required to find out whether any sponge was left by the doctor at Parmarth Mission Hospital or at Santom Hospital.

34. In the light of the discussion herein­above, I hold that there is not sufficient material on Court record to prove guilt of any of the accused beyond reasonable doubts including the guilt of the hospital. The accused are Page 21 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019 FIR No. 154/2001, PS : Roop Nagar State Vs Dr. Vinod & Ors.

therefore entitled to benefit of reasonable doubts and they are accordingly acquitted.

35. The accused persons have already furnished their bonds under Section 437­A Cr.P.C., with sureties, photographs and ID proofs. Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2019.09.18 17:31:45 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar) this 18th day of September 2019. MM­08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 22 of 22 MM­08(Central)/THC/Delhi/18.09.2019