Delhi District Court
State vs . Sudesh Rani on 18 November, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER KUMAR, MM07,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. SUDESH RANI
FIR No. 830/97
PS: PASCHIM VIHAR
U/S: 304 A IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 2657/2/98
Date of commission of offence : 22.06.97
Date of institution of the case : 18.02.98
Name of the complainant : Sh. Om Parkash
Name of accused and address : Smt. Sudesh Rani, W/o
Sh. Satish Kumar, R/o
A34, Relief Camp,
Peera Garhi, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/S 304 A IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 18.11.2010
J U D G M E N T
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.06.97 at about 6.45 PM at Relief Camp, Peera Garhi, Paschim Vihar within the jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar Delhi, Smt. Kamlesh i.e. the deceased in Hindu Rao Hospital due to negligence of the FIR No.830/97 , PS Paschim Vihar Page 1/5 2 accused, who is the sister of Dr. Balbir as Smt. Kamlesh was got aborted from her and died in the absence of proper treatment.
2. The prima facie case U/S 304 A IPC was found to be made out against the accused. Accordingly notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. was served against the accused. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution got examined nine witnesses, which are as follows:
(1) PW1 - Dr. C.B. Dabas, who conducted the postmortem. (2) PW2 - Ms. Subhash Rani, sister of the deceased. (3) PW3 Sh. Ashok Kumar, brother of the deceased. (4) PW4 Sh. Subash Chand, brother of law of the deceased. (5) PW5 - HC Malkiat Singh, who is the Duty Officer. (6) PW6 - HC Virender Singh, who handed over the body of the deceased.
(7) PW7 - Sh. Om Parkash, husband of deceased.
(8) PW8 - Dr. Surender Kumar, who examined the patient.
(9) PW9 - SI Gurdeep Singh, the IO of the case.
FIR No.830/97 , PS Paschim Vihar Page 2/5 3
4. Statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him. Accused stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilty of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is also a settled proposition that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution case in a criminal trial throughout the course of the trial rests entirely and entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reason doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
6. As per prosecution story, the deceased i.e. Smt. Kamlesh Rani was taken to lady doctor i.e. the accused by Ms. Subhsh Rani FIR No.830/97 , PS Paschim Vihar Page 3/5 4 (PW2). That the deceased expired due to negligent and improper treatment given by the accused. But Ms. Subhash Rani (PW2) deposed that the deceased was her sister, who was taken to Government Hospital for treatment. The witness denied the suggestion put to her that they got examined Kamlesh i.e. deceased by the accused prior to her admission in the Hindu Rao Hospital.
7. Ms. Subhash Rani (PW2), Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW3) and Sh. Subhash Chand (PW4) all these witnesses are the relatives of the deceased but none of them supported the story of the prosecution. Nothing material came out of the crossexamination done by the Ld. APP when the witnesses are were found resiling from their previous statements.
8. Sh. Om Parkash (PW7) deposed that he came to know on telephone that his wife is seriously ill and he came to Delhi and he found that she expired. It is further deposed that on enquiry he came to know that his wife was aborted and doctor gave a wrong injection and she died due to negligency of accused.
9. Ms. Subhash Rani (PW2), as per prosecution story accompanied the deceased to the doctor. But if we go through the evidence led by PW2, she did not support the story of the prosecution in the same way PW3 and PW4 also did not FIR No.830/97 , PS Paschim Vihar Page 4/5 5 supported the prosecution story. Hence the evidence led by the PW7 cannot support the case of the prosecution as the same is heresay evidence.
10. The prosecution is failed to established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In these circumstances, the accused acquitted from the charges levelled against her for the offence punishable U/s 304 A IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (RAJINDER KUMAR)
Court on 18.11.2010 MM07(WEST)/DELHI
FIR No.830/97 , PS Paschim Vihar Page 5/5