Madras High Court
Unknown vs Dr.Y.Ajith on 1 February, 2013
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01/02/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No.594 of 2005 AND CRL.RC[MD].No.439 of 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No.594 of 2005:- State, Rep by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Crime No.274 of 2000. ... Appellant Vs. 1.Dr.Y.Ajith 2.Dr.Y.Ashok ... Respondents PRAYER Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in S.C.No.35 of 2003, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, dated 16.08.2003 and set aside the same. !For Appellant ... Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor ^For Respondent ... Mr.S.Ashokkumar Senior Counsel For Mr.P.Elil Nilavan CRL.RC[MD].No.439 of 2006:- M.Balakumar ... Appellant Vs. 1.State, Rep by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Crime No.274 of 2000. 2.Dr.Y.Ajith 3.Dr.Y.Ashok ... Respondents PRAYER Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal of the respondents/accused for offences under Sections, 302, 201 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of Sessions, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil in S.C.No.35 of 2003, dated 16.08.2003 and set aside the same. For Appellant ... Mr.I.Ramachandran For Respondent 1 ... Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents2&3 ... Mr.S.Ashokkumar Senior Counsel For Mr.P.Elil Nilavan :JUDGMENT
************* S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
"The law is the watchdog, and not a bloodhound, and as long as the doctors do their duties with reasonable care, they will not be held liable even if their treatment was unsuccessful. The doctors and nursing homes/hospitals need not be unduly worried about the performance of their functions". This was the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Martin F.D'Souza Vs. Mohd.Ishfaq [2009 (3) SCC 1, while dealing with a case of alleged medical negligence. At a time, when the medical fraternity was under severe attack on account of unscrupulous criminal cases and civil cases filed against doctors and hospitals, this observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court came as a sigh of relief. But, the case on hand, which is much prior to F.D'Souza's case, wherein two doctors were prosecuted for murder [punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code], could have, to some extent, shattered the confidence of the medical professionals, who would have heard of the facts of this case and the ultimate prosecution levelled against the two fully qualifed doctors, having M.B.B.S., Degrees to their credit, portraying them as murderers. The Trial Court acquitted the doctors. But, the State claims to be aggrieved. That is how, the State is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. This is really unfortunate.
2. The respondents, in Criminal Appeal (MD).No.594 of 2005, are, undoubtedly, licensed medical professionals, having M.B.B.S., Degrees to their credit. They were running a hospital under the name and style "Ajit & Ashok Hospital", at Christopher Colony, Keelaperuvilai in Kanyakumari District. It was a small hospital, having minimum required equipments for two doctors to practice. One Mr.Murugan, the husband of PW-1's sister, according to the prosecution, was suffering from abdominal pain in the year 1999. He consulted the respondents/doctors in their hospital. They prescribed certain medicines for the same. But, the abdominal pain did not recede. The accused advised him to go for a scan examination and X-ray. Accordingly, Mr.Murugan, [hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"] took X-ray, on 17.06.1999, at "Guru X-ray & Scan Centre", P.W.D.Road, Nagercoil, [vide EX-P3]. Similarly, he underwent abdomen ultrasound examination at Guru X-ray & Scan Centre, on 16.06.1999, [vide EX-P2]. On referring to the above reports, the first accused diagnosed that it was a case of hernia, which required surgery. But, Mr.Murugan did not agree for surgery and instead, he wanted only medicines. Therefore, the first accused prescribed certain medicines for the same.
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the year 2000, again, Mr.Murugan complained of abdominal pain. PW-1 and the other family members took him to the hospital of the respondents/accused. On examining Mr.Murugan, the respondents advised him to undergo surgery as early as possible. But, PW-1 and the other attenders told the respondents that they would take him to a Government Hospital for surgery, as they could not bear the cost for surgery in the private hospital. The respondents told them that they could perform surgery at a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The deceased and PW-1 agreed for the same. Accordingly, they paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- after few days. Thereafter, on 08.10.2000, at 09.00 AM, the deceased accompanied by PW-1, went to the hospital run by the respondents for admission. But, both the respondents turned up in the hospital only at 12.00 noon.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the respondents told the deceased - Mr.Murugan and PW-1 that they would conduct some preliminary test in their hospital, and thereafter, they will take him to the Government Hospital for surgery. The deceased and PW-1 believed the same to be true. After sometime, they took him into a room in the said hospital. According to the prosecution, it was not an equiped operation theatre, but the kitchen of the house. PW-1 and the others were waiting outside. The deceased alone was there in the kitchen along with the respondents. At that time, PW-1 heard the screams of the deceased. The accused were consoling the deceased - Mr.Murugan not to weep. Thereafter, the deceased did not scream. Within ten minutes thereafter, PW-1 heard the sound of washing the kitchen.
5. After sometime, both the accused went out of the hospital through the back entrance. Within a few minutes, the father of the respondents came to the hospital. He told PW-1 that an unfortunate and untoward incident had happened. When PW-1 rushed into the room, he found the deceased lying dead. There was a long suture found on the abdomen indicating surgery. PW-1 raised alarm. Then, he proceeded to the Aasaripallam Police Station and preferred a complaint against the respondents. At 05.00 PM, on 08.10.2000, PW-13, the Head Constable, attached to the said Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.304 of 2000 under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Then, he forwarded the complaint and the First Information Report to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, who received the same at 07.00 PM, on 08.10.2000. PW-13, handed over the case diary to PW-14, the then Inspector of Police, attached to the Aasaripallam Police Station for investigation.
6. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-14 proceeded to the place of occurrence at 05.30 PM and prepared an Observation Mahazer, [EX-P6] in the presence of PW-5 and another witness. Then, on a request made by PW-14, PW-4 took photographs of the dead body, [EX-P4 series]. On the same day at 05.45 PM in the presence of PW-5, PW-14 recovered MO-1 to MO-8, which are all hospital equiptments. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 05.30 PM and 08.30 PM. EX-P20 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined PW-1 to PW-3 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. PW-7, Dr.A.N.Rajan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 09.10.2000 between 01.50 PM and 03.15 PM. He found the following injuries:-
"1. 8 cm long sutured wound seen near the right groin. On removal of the sutures 15 grams of hematomas [clotted blood] seen. On further exploration the deep muscles of abdomen are tied together with prolene [suture materials].
2. 2 Needle marks seen on the inner aspect of both ankle [medical treatment]."
EX-P9 is the Postmortem Certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of myocardial infarction.
7. Continuing the investigation, PW-14 searched for the accused. However, the accused obtained Anticipatory Bail from the High Court. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by his successor, Inspector of Police, PW-15. He collected the scan report and X-ray report, which were taken in the year 1999. The investigation was further taken up by PW-16 on 02.05.2001. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302, 201 and 193, r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused. The first charge is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the accused, with a common intention of causing the death of the deceased, conducted surgery without having sufficient expertise knowledge as well as the equipments and with the knowledge that the deceased was a heart patient, and thus, by conducting surgery, caused the death of the deceased, which amounts to an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge is that they washed the bloodstains found in the room, where surgery was conducted, and thus, they had caused the disappearance of evidence. The third charge is under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the first accused alone on the allegation that on 08.10.2000, he had manipulated the attendance register maintained by the Government Parasalai Hospital, where he was working as a doctor.
9. The accused pleaded innocence. Therefore, they were put on trial. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as sixteen witnesses were examined and twenty three documents were exhibited, besides eight Material Objects. Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and PW-2 is the wife of the deceased. They have, in their evidences, stated that on the crucial date, without obtaining consent and without having sufficient expertise knowledge and equipments, both the accused conducted hernia surgery without even administering anesthesia, which resulted in the spontaneous death of the deceased. PW-6 is the owner of the building, where the alleged occurrence had taken place. According to him, the building was rented out by him to the father of the accused only for residential purpose on 01.10.1994. It is his further evidence that the house is not fit for running any hospital or for conducting any surgery.
10. PW-7, Dr.A.N.Rajan, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to "Myocardial infarction". He had further noticed that there was no opening of the abdomen and sutures were only at the muscle and skin.
11. PW-8, Dr.S.Chelladurai, was the one, who was running "Guru X-ray and Scan Centre", at P.W.D.Road at Nagercoil. It was in his X-ray Centre, on a reference made by the first accused on 06.06.1999, the deceased had undergone scan examination. EX-P2 is the Scan Report. According to PW-8, the scan report showed that the patient had enlargement of the liver due to hepatic venus congestion and inferior vena cava [ivc] was dilated due to congestic cardiac failure. He has further deposed about X-ray taken on 17.06.1999 on a reference made by the first accused for the deceased - Mr.Murugan. According to PW-8, X- ray showed cardio megaly mitral valvular heart disease; Pulmonary congestion grade iv; pulmonary hyper tension; pulmonary interstitial edema and bilateral minimal plural effusion. EX-P3 is the X-ray report. According to his opinion, hepatomegaly was due to hepatic veins congestion due to cardiac failure. Liver enlargement was there due to hepatic veins enlargement. If the veins draining the liver to heart shows stagnation of blood due to cardiac failure, the liver will be enlarged. He has further opined that [I.V.C] inferior venacava is a major vessel draining the lower part of the body. It is his further opinion that usually enlargement of IVC will occur due to the pulmonary congestion in congestic cardiac failure. Miral valve is the valve between left atrium and left ventricle of the heart and according to him, the valve mal-functioning will produce X-ray findings like this. He has further stated that X-ray report shows cardio megaly, which is enlargement of the heart than the normal size. Normally, the heart would be 50% of the thoracic diameter. Anything above this is called as "cardio megaly". He has finally opined that a person, having congestic cardiac failure, pulmonary venus congestion, bilateral plural effusion, hepatomegaly due to congestic failure and I.V.C congestion, is a high risk person for any surgery.
12. PW-9, Dr.P.Ayyappan, was the former Deputy Director of Kerala Health Services. During the year 2000, he was the Superintendent of Government Hospital at Parasala, where the first accused was working as a doctor. According to him, the initial against the name of the first accused - Dr.Y.A.Ajith entered on 08.10.2000 in the attendance register, maintained by the Government Hospital, differs from the other initials for the month of October 2000. From his evidence, the prosecution has made an attempt to prove the third charge against the first accused under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. PW-10, Dr.C.Selvaraj, was formerly working as Additional Director of Medical Services at Nagercoil. According to him, the accused did not apply for permission to establish an operation theatre in the building in question. Thus, according to him, no permission was granted by the authority for "Ajit & Ashok Hospital", at Christopher Colony, Keelaperuvilai in Kanyakumari District, for running an operation theatre with the required hygienic conditions.
14. PW-11, Dr.A.Edwin Joe was the then Professor of Forensic Medicine at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. On 10.06.2000, during investigation, the Investigating Officer gave a questionnaire to him, containing as many as five questions. He answered the said questions. The crux of the evidence of this witness is that a major surgery should not be conducted without administering anesthesia and without having life saving equipments.
15. PW-12, Dr.K.Santharam, was then working as an Associate Professor in Pathology at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. The doctor, [PW-7], who conducted autopsy, had sent the specimen taken from the heart of the deceased for pathological examination. He opined that histo-pathological examination revealed that the deceased died due to myocardial infarction. PW-13 to PW-16 are the Inspectors of Police, who either registered the case or investigated the same.
16. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false. They did not choose to examine any witness on their side. According to them, 08.10.2000 was Sunday and on the said date, both of them were in their home. Around 02.00 PM, the deceased - Mr.Murugan was brought to their hospital and he sat in the sit out of their hospital complaining of severe lower abdominal pain. Their hospital was situated four or five houses away from their house. The wife of the deceased - Mr.Murugan and the other relatives asked them to retrieve his pain. After they opened the clinic, they made him to lie down on a very good hospital table in a big room. They examined the deceased and found that he had a swelling in the right groin. According to them, at the instance of his wife and the other relatives, they decided to remove the swelling to retrieve him from his severe pain. They also suggested to the deceased and the relatives to go to any Government Hospital for treatment. But, they forced them and requested them to perform minor surgical procedure. Since they refused to go to any other hospital, as suggested by them, they obtained consent from his wife and the other relatives and removed the lipoma or neuro fibroma. The swelling was taken out and kept in a bottle for histo-pathological examination to find out as to whether it was neuro fibroma or lipoma [swelling of fat]. Thereafter, at 02.45 PM, the deceased complained of sudden severe chest pain and started sweating profusely. Immediately, they took ECG, which showed that the patient had suffered a sudden heart attack or myocardial infarction. In spite of administering life saving medicine, at 02.50 PM, he died. According to them, the death was due to myocardial infarction, which is a natural death and his death, as per the opinion of the experts, is due to heart attack, which can occur to anybody, both young and old, irrespective of the procedure carried out by them.
17. Thus, according to them, they did not conduct any surgery for hernia. As a matter of fact, according to them, they conducted a small procedure to remove lipoma, after giving local anesthesia. After the patient recovered from anesthesia, long after the procedure was over, the patient developed chest pain and died of sudden heart disease, [heart attack]. According to them, the death was a natural death. Thus, they pleaded innocence. On their side, they exhibited three documents as EX-D-1 to EX-D3. From the above documents, they submitted that after the death of the deceased, the entire hospital was ransacked and their houses were also set on fire. The medical records pertaining to the treatment given to the deceased, including the consent letter, were all destroyed, and so, they could not produce any medical records. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges. That is how, the State is now before this Court with Crl.A.(MD).No.594 of 2005. PW-1, the brother-in-law of the deceased, has come up with Crl.RC.(MD).No.439 of 2006, challenging the acquittal of the accused/respondents.
18. Since both the matters arise out of the same Judgment, we have heard the same together and we dispose of both the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Petition by means of this Common Judgment.
19. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and we have also perused the records carefully.
20. Admittedly, in this case, the deceased was suffering from heart disease. PW-7 and PW-8 have categorically stated that the deceased was suffering from cardio megaly, mitral valvular heart disease and also Pulmonary congestion grade iv, pulmonary hyper tension, pulmonary interstitial edema and bilateral minimal plural effusion. These findings were given by PW-7 and PW-8 even in the year 1999 on the reference made by the first accused. Therefore, it can be inferred that the first accused had known the above condition of the deceased.
21. Now, according to PW-1 and PW-2, on 08.10.2000, the deceased went to the hospital of the accused for treatment for abdominal pain. This is admitted by the accused. It is the further case of PW-1 and PW-2 that without obtaining their consent and without having sufficient expertise knowledge and also without having sufficient equipments, "surgery for hernia" was conducted, which was the cause for the death.
22. But, a perusal of the evidence of PW-7 would go to show that there was no indication that surgery for hernia had been conducted. He has further deposed that the surgery was only at the level of subcutaneous tissue, which means that it was only for lipoma. During cross-examination, he has further stated that there was no surgery conducted for hernia at all. In this regard, we have thoroughly gone through the evidence of PW-7 and the postmortem certificate. In this context, we may point out that the well recognized and well established procedure for "Herniorrhaphy" [hernia repair], i.e., surgery for hernia is as follows:-
An incision is made in the skin over the groin about 5 cm length obliquely. Then, the subcutaneous tissue is opened and the sac containing either the omentum or the bowel, as the case may be, is identified. The sac is opened and the content is reduced into the abdominal cavity. Then, the sac is closed using suture material. Then, the abdominal wall is closed layer by layer by using suture materials and finally, the skin is closed. This surgery is conducted by administering anesthesia.
23. According to the accused, they did not conduct any surgery for hernia at all. Per contra, according to them, they removed only lipoma after obtaining consent from his wife and another relative and after administering local anesthesia.
24. Before going into the further facts of the case, let us have a pause at this stage to note as to what is lipoma. Lipoma is a knot of fatty tissue that is usually found just below the skin [subcutaneous]. Lipomas can occur almost anywhere on the body, but are most commonly found on the trunk, shoulders, neck and armpits. Lipomas can also form in muscles and internal organs. It can be described as a rubbery bulge that feels moveable.
25. In the case of removal of lipoma, the procedure is known as "Lipoma - excision". In this procedure, the skin is opened and the lipoma is identified. The lipoma is at the level of subcutaneous tissue. That is in the muscle. The subcutaneous tissue is opened, the lipoma is removed and then, the tissue is closed, followed by closure of skin. In this procedure, the "sac" is not touched and no incision is made on the sac.
26. In this case, according to PW-7, there was no opening of the sac at all. As we have pointed out already, to know whether the procedure was for hernia, the opening and closure of the sac is the only point of difference. The evidence of PW-7 clearly rules out the possibility of any surgery for hernia, as he did not notice opening of the "sac". Therefore, the evidences of PW-1 and PW- 2 that the accused conducted surgery for hernia is not true and the same are, therefore, liable to be rejected.
27. According to PW-7, the removal of lipoma could be conducted by any qualified doctor even in a nursing home. Such procedure need not be conducted only in an operation theatre. He has further stated that if the muscle area is a fibrous one, during procedure, prolene is used. It is his further evidence that intermuscular lipoma may occur anywhere in the body. He has further deposed that the same could be removed by applying local anesthesia and by incision [opening]. If lipoma is to be removed, the doctor has to open the skin, subcutaneous and also the muscle layer. He has further opined that incision could be done through skin, subcutaneous tissue and deficia and if necessary muscle should be incised along with line of fibres. He has further opined that the removal of lipoma or neuro fibroma is a minor procedure, which can be or could be carried out in an out-patient place by qualified doctors, viz., M.B.B.S., holders. This process can be done by administering local anesthesia after test dose. For applying or administering local anesthesia, no qualified anesthetist is necessary. He has further opined that the injury found on the deceased indicated only removal by incision of lipoma. According to him, in the process of removal of inter muscular lipoma or neruo fibroma, incision for 8 cms is quite normal and such incision could be done even by an anesthetist.
28. From the above categorical opinion of PW-7, it is crystal clear that there was no hernia and what was done by them was only a simple procedure of excision for removal of lipoma. Thus, the respondents have proved that the procedure conducted by them was only for removal of lipoma and it was not a surgery for hernia, as it is projected by the prosecution. PW-7 has further opined that the death was due to myocardial infarction. This opinion is based on the opinion of PW-12. PW-12, who was an Associate Professor in Pathology at Tirunelveli Medical College, after taking various tests, including histo- pathological test on the specimen of the heart, had confirmed that the deceased died of myocardial infarction, which is nothing but a sudden stoppage of the functioning of the heart, resulting in death. This is, in common parlance, called as "heart attack". Admittedly, the deceased, in this case, was suffering from heart disease, which was diagnosed even in the year 1999. The doctors have opined that the death of the deceased was a natural death due to heart attack.
29. Now, the question is whether the cause of death, viz., myocardial infarction had been activated by the procedure conducted by the accused. In this regard, we may refer to the evidence of PW-7. During cross-examination, he has stated that myocardial infarction can occur at any time to any person. He has categorically opined that in the case on hand, myocardial infarction had no connection or link with excision for removal of lipoma. He has further categorically opined that the death, in this case, due to myocardial infarction, was a natural death. Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence to even infer that the death of the deceased, in this case, was caused by the procedure conducted by the accused. Neither it has been proved that the heart disease was activated by excision resulting in myocardial infarction. It has not been established before the Court by means of any acceptable evidence that the death of the deceased had at least any remote link with the procedure conducted by the accused. Thus, it is crystal clear that the death of the deceased was not as a result of the act of the accused, and therefore, the question of convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise at all. Consequently, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code also. So far as the charge under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, except saying that in the attendance register, there appeared to be some difference in the handwriting, nothing more has been established to prove the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against the accused. The Trial Court was, therefore, right in acquitting the accused.
30. Before parting with this case, we would like to highlight certain other facts. It is in evidence that after the death of the deceased in the hospital of the accused, the relatives of the deceased indulged in arson and set fire to the house of the accused and also to the hospital, in which all the documents pertaining to the treatment given to the deceased and the other properties were destroyed. Probably, driven by the said commotion, the police prosecuted the respondents alleging that they had committed a heinous crime of murder. Being an accused in a criminal case is an everlasting stigma having greater implications in the personal life as well as in the public life of the doctors. It will have its own adverse impact in the professional career of the doctors. A medical practitioner, faced with an emergency, ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his sufferings. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do anything. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab reported in 2006 (6) SCC 1 : 2005 SCC (Crl) 1369, in Paragraph No.29, has made the following observations:-
"29. If the hands be trembling with the dangling fear of facing a criminal prosecution in the event of failure for whatever reason, whether attributable to himself or not, neither can a surgeon, nor can a physician successfully administer the life-saving dose of medicine. Discretion being the better part of valour, a medical professional would feel better advised to leave a terminal patient to his own fate in the case of emergency, where the chance of success may be 10% [or so], rather than taking the risk of making a last ditch effort towards saving the subject and facing a criminal prosecution if his effort fails. Such timidity forced upon a doctor would be a disservice to society."
31. In Martin F.D'Souza v. Mohd.Ishfaq reported in 2009 (3) SCC 1, in Paragraph No.42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-
"42. When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, not to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalised for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions."
32. In the case on hand, two doctors, who are fully qualified, have been unnecessarily dragged to the Court, portraying them as murderers. We are able to perceive the damage caused to their professional career. The mental agony suffered by them is unimaginable. Their houses and hospital were set on fire. Number of fire service vehicles had to be involved in extinguishing the fire. Thus, they have lost their properties also. Had the police officers, who investigated the case, been sensitive to the real issues involved, not having been swayed by the commotion of the relatives of the deceased or by any sentiment, this unnecessary litigation could have been avoided. If the prosecutions are launched against the doctors in such a recalcitrant manner, that too, for murder, then, it will be a wrong signal to the professionals, which in turn will amount to doing disservice to the society. For a moment, we like to clarify that we do not suggest for undue sympathy towards the doctors. Our anguish is only in the larger interest of the society. We only say that the doctors could be prosecuted as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court then and there, if there are sufficient materials to prosecute them for any offence allegedly committed by them. But, in the case on hand, for no fault on the part of the respondents, their professional career has been spoiled by dragging them to the Court and they have been put to intolerable agony. We hope that in future, the police officers faced with similar situations will investigate the case objectively and act according to law going by the truth and not by emotions.
In the result, the Judgment dated 16.08.2003 made in S.C.No.35 of 2003, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, is confirmed and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Revision Petition is also dismissed.
NB To
1.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil.