| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/905906 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Decided On | Jun-22-2010 |
| Case Number | Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007 |
| Judge | Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J. |
| Acts | Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304 |
| Appellant | Dr. Patel Raju |
| Respondent | State of Ap and anr. |
| Appellant Advocate | Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv. |
| Cases Referred | Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]the petitioner is accused of offence under section 304-a ipc in c.c.no.126 of 2005 on the file of judicial magistrate of the first class, atmakur, kurnool district. he is working as anesthesian in the rank of civil assistant surgeon in government general hospital, kurnool. he was one of the medical officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in government hospital, atmakur on 29.07.2005. it is alleged that as anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.', (int) 1 => '<p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. ', (int) 2 => '<p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.', (int) 3 => '<p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.', (int) 4 => '<p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.', (int) 5 => '<p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.', (int) 6 => '<p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. ', (int) 7 => '<p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.', (int) 1 => '<p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. ', (int) 2 => '<p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.', (int) 3 => '<p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.', (int) 4 => '<p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.', (int) 5 => '<p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.', (int) 6 => '<p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. ', (int) 7 => '<p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.', (int) 1 => '<p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. ', (int) 2 => '<p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.', (int) 3 => '<p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.', (int) 4 => '<p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.', (int) 5 => '<p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.', (int) 6 => '<p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. ', (int) 7 => '<p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.', (int) 1 => '<p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. ', (int) 2 => '<p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.', (int) 3 => '<p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.', (int) 4 => '<p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.', (int) 5 => '<p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.', (int) 6 => '<p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. ', (int) 7 => '<p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.', (int) 1 => '<p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. ', (int) 2 => '<p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.', (int) 3 => '<p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.', (int) 4 => '<p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.', (int) 5 => '<p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.', (int) 6 => '<p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. ', (int) 7 => '<p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.', (int) 1 => '<p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. ', (int) 2 => '<p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.', (int) 3 => '<p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.', (int) 4 => '<p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.', (int) 5 => '<p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.', (int) 6 => '<p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. ', (int) 7 => '<p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.', (int) 1 => '<p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. ', (int) 2 => '<p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.', (int) 3 => '<p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.', (int) 4 => '<p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.', (int) 5 => '<p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.', (int) 6 => '<p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. ', (int) 7 => '<p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Dr Patel Raju Vs State of Ap and anr - Citation 905906 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '905906', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No.2534 of 2007', 'appellant' => 'Dr. Patel Raju', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Dr. Patel Raju Vs. State of Ap and anr.', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-06-22', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Sri Samudrala Govinda Rajulu , J.', 'judgement' => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.</p><p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. </p><p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.</p><p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.</p><p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.</p><p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.</p><p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. </p><p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Ap and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $args = array( (int) 0 => '905906', (int) 1 => 'dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/905906/dr-patel-raju-vs-state-ap-anr' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.126 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District. He is working as Anesthesian in the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He was one of the Medical Officers who attended camp for family planning button hole operations in Government Hospital, Atmakur on 29.07.2005. It is alleged that as Anesthesian, his duty to give anaesthesia to the patients and that inspite of it, he cut 5 cm on abdomen of the deceased woman with Calpal to a depth of 7.8 cm and that as skin and fat at abdomen of the deceased was of thickness of 3 cm, it resulted in causing damage to small vein resulting in haemorrhage and loss of circulation of blood to heart and that the deceased died.', (int) 1 => '<p>It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that even as per statements of V. Rajaratnam, Male Nuring Assistant, Chowtametla Ramanamma, Health Assistant who were at the medical camp, collected by Investigating Officer during investigation, as per division of work at the camp, the accused was making initial incision on abdomen of the patients and Dr. Iliyas Basha was conducting family planning operations through incision made by the accused. It is further contended by the petitioner's counsel that even though the accused is a specialist Anesthesian, he is holding basic M.B.B.S., degree which enables him to perform surgeries and that therefore, it cannot be said that he did any act which he is not expected to do. ', (int) 2 => '<p>Reliance was placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court gave guidelines for assessing medical negligence cases. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that before filing charge sheet against the doctor, the investigating officer should have sought for and obtained opinion of another doctor who is an expert on the subject and that the investigating officer in the present case did not obtain such opinion from any expert touching the subject before filing charge sheet against the doctor/accused.', (int) 3 => '<p>After the deceased died, her body was sent to post-mortem and one Professor and another Assistant Professor together from Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and found the following two injuries on the dead body: "1. An incised wound transversely placed measuring 1 cm within the cembilicers with regular margins clear cut with no oozing is noted. On dissection, contused track of 7-8 cm within the abdominal wall and over the rectus sheath directed left to right and downwards is seen. Corresponding with the incised injury a round punctured wound of 1 cm in the rectus sheath is noted. The punctured wound is directed downwards and backwards from left to right and reached the retroperitoneal space and causing damage to the retroperitoneal vessels of right renal vein at its entry into the inferior vena cava and also damaging the right ovarian vessels. This leads to bleeding into peritoneal cavity and also retroperitoneal space. Peritoneal cavity contains about 500 cc of fluid blood and a clot of 500 gm and also huge haematoma of about 1000 gms is noted around the right kidney and adrenal and perinephric pad of fat. Both right kidney and right adrenal are intact and pale and normal in structure. 2.', (int) 4 => '<p>An incised injury with regular clean-cut margins covered by a plasters bandage with oozing of blood of 0.5 cm in size transversely placed 5 cm below the umbilicus in the midline of lower abdomen and corresponding round punctured wound of 0.5 cm is seen in the rectum sheath and track is directed dowmiardi backwards from left to right causing damage of right side of broad ligament involving right ovarian artery and small branches of right uterine artery and leading to small haematoma of 3 cm diameter size. During the passage of both the punctured wounds the mesenteric tears involving small branches of mesenteric arteries are noted. The abdominal skin and fat is of 3 cm thick." Finally it was opined by those two Professors that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from damage to abdominal blood vessels due to punctured injuries of abdomen with blunt object.', (int) 5 => '<p>Even though abdominal skin with fat was of 3 cms thickness, it is for the petitioner/accused to explain as to why he made dissection of abdomen to a depth of 7.8 cm., which resulted in damage to abdominal blood vessels. Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws burden on the accused who has exclusive knowledge as to what made him to probe 4 cm more depth beyond 3 cm. thickness of skin with fat. When the prosecution is able to discharge its initial burden of proving the facts to the extent collected during investigation, then it is for the accused to explain those circumstances which are within his exclusive knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused/petitioner did not come up with any such explanation in this petition. It is open for the accused to explain those circumstances during trial. This Court does not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court and to relieve the petitioner/doctor from liability without trial.', (int) 6 => '<p>In the result, the petition is dismissed. ', (int) 7 => '<p>1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369 ' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1369