Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Further perusal of the record reveals that later on 9.15 A.M. Rahul Mahajan had been visited by the accused No. 7 and accused No. 8 and though they found him trying to open eyes and vitals for stable yet they advised for additional medicines and pathological test which did not include urine for toxicology screen. It was only at about 5.20 A.M. Dr. V. Suri visited Rahul Mahajan and advised for urine toxic screen for which sample was taken at 7.30 P.M. which fact is apparent from the statement of the various witnesses. On 3.6.2006 at 9.30 A.M. the ventilators were removed from Rahul Mahajan however he was kept on Bipap ventilation and at about 3.00 P.M. the accused No. 12 Along with accused No. 7 gave a press briefing before the media stating therein that the toxic screen of Rahul Mahajan was negative meaning thereby that they had not found evidence of opiate or cocaine consumption by Rahul Mahajan. The various documents consisting of Rahul Mahajan's treatment file, bills, pathological reports, CFSL reports etc. revealed that the cloths of Bibek Moitra gave positive test for the presence of 6-manoacetylmorphine, acetylcodein, codeine, cocaine and caffine and the stomach wash of Bibek Moitra gave positive test for the presence of Ethyl Alcohol, 6-manoacetylmorphine, acetylcodeine, codeine and cocaine. Even the cloths of Rahul Mahajan gave positive test for the presence of Ethyl Alcohol, manoacetylmorphine, acetylcodeine and cocaine and the white powder substance handed over by accused No. 13 to the casualty doctor tested and opined as heroine and cocaine. The various entries made in the registers are allegedly showing different time rather than the right time of admission and all the entries were reported to be stopped till such time Bibek Moitra was not declared dead which fact is evident from the fact that in between another patient Rakesh Malhotra had also come to the hospital for casualty treatment and his entry time has been wrongly mentioned and later on cut and over written. The entries also do not match with the actual sequence of arrival of the patient. There are separate interpolation in the MLC. As per the MLC No. 236/2006 the police had been informed at 4.00 A.M. which fact is incorrect since as per the record under version of Dr. Hussnain Raza the information to the police was prepared at 4.35 A.M. which was handed over to the Security Officer who had informed that PS Tuglak Road only at 5.00 A.M. which fact is apparent from the DD of PS Tuglak Road. It is also alleged that the treatment file has been manipulated.