JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---One P.S. Maker was admitted at Bhatia General Hospital on the evening of 26th August, 1969, for administering two Glucose bottles on the advice of his family doctor, Dr. Dalal. Arrangements for his admission in the Hospital were made by Dr. Dalal directly through the House Surgeon, accused No. 1, Dr. Dalal himself being Honorary Surgeon of the Hospital. He was admitted in Special Room No. 115-A as Class II patient. His wife, the complainant, and his son Anil accompanied him. Unfortunately, this infusion of Glucose seems to have had adverse reactions, contrary to the expectation. There is controversy whether proper precautions were taken before the infusion and whether immediate steps were taken to stop the infusion and the reaction and whether any senior doctor actually was called and whether the Complainant objected to his treatment and if patient entered into coma at 2.00 a.m. that night. It is, therefore, common ground that rigours stopped after two injections and subsequent fever also subsided and from 11.00 a.m. on 27-8-1969 good treatment was given and there was short lived improvement. Maker, however, died on 30th in the Hospital, cause of death shown in the records being Infective Hepatitis and Hepatico Renal failure. 2. After about five weeks, on or about 9th October, 1969, a complaint by post, signed by the Complainant on 7th, was received by the Chief Presidency Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as C. P. M.) alleging negligence against the House Surgeon, accused No. 1, the nurse, accused No. 2, and Dr. Dalal. The learned C.P.M. called for a report from the police. Case papers and records from the Hospital seem to have been seized and concerned Doctors and other witnesses seem to have been examined in the course of this investigation. "No offence" report was submitted by the police. The learned C.P.M., however, issued process against the two accused. In due course, a charge was framed against both the accused on 25th March, 1971, for an offence under section 304-A I.P.C. It is first alleged that the Glucose saline was intravenously administered without taking the precaution of suppressing his immune sensitivity, though the patient, Maker, was suffering from jaundice, giving rise to anaphylactic shock. In due course, a charge was framed against both the accused on 25th March, 1971, for an offence under section 304-A I.P.C. It is first alleged that the Glucose saline was intravenously administered without taking the precaution of suppressing his immune sensitivity, though the patient, Maker, was suffering from jaundice, giving rise to anaphylactic shock. As accused No. 2 is alone alleged to have processed this infusion, this part of the charge is mainly directed against her, accused No. 1s alleged negligence being in allowing the nurse, accused No. 2, to do it herself. It is, secondly, alleged that no adequate and immediate treatment was given for the said shock to arrest the deterioration during the reversible pre-coma period on the night of 26th and 27th August, 1969. This part of the charge is obviously directed mainly against accused No. 1, the doctor. 3. In support of her case, the complainant examined herself, her son Anil and one Dr. Karamchandani, as Medical Expert. Other evidence consists of five formal witnesses examined either to produce the hospital record or prove the bills for medicine and hospital expenditure, about which there is little controversy. 4. The accused denied that they were negligent either in infusion of the Glucose or subsequent treatment. They also denied that the death of the patient was caused by anything done or omitted to be done by either of them. Accused No. 2 denied that accused No. 1 was not present at the time the patient was examined and infusion commenced. Accused No. 1 asserts that he was present from the beginning and at the time of infusion. 5. On behalf of the defence, five witnesses were examined. D.W.I. Dashrath Narayan produced Male Ward II, Day and Night Report Book and Special Order Book Y and Y-2, as also laboratory finding register at Exhibit 6, Bio-chemical findings register at Exhibit 7, Laboratory despatch book at Exhibit 8 and Night Sisters Report Book at Exhibit 9. D.W. 2 Dr. Sathe has been examined to prove the condition of the patient, when the patient was examined on 27th morning as also the treatment prescribed by him till the death of the patient. D.W. 5 Dr. Vishnu Gokhale has been examined to prove that he was called at the room of the deceased patient Maker at about 11 30 p.m. on 26th itself. Dr. D.W. 5 Dr. Vishnu Gokhale has been examined to prove that he was called at the room of the deceased patient Maker at about 11 30 p.m. on 26th itself. Dr. Dalal, the family doctor of the deceased, is D.W. 3 and Dr. Makhatiar, D.W. 4, is the Superintendent of the Bhatia General Hospital and has been examined to support the case that Dr. Gokhale was called on 26th evening and all possible treatment was given to the deceased in the Hospital. Certain call books and documents and registers were also testified by him in the course of evidence. The learned Defence Counsel Mr. Kotwal made a grievance, not without justification, that this material produced by the defence to rebut prosecution case, after his 342 statement and written statement, has been extensively used by the learned trial Judge in support of the prosecution without even giving the accused any opportunity to explain how it cannot be incriminating. 6. Two questions arise for consideration in this case. First, whether the accused or anyone of them were culpably negligent in treating the deceased patient Maker and, secondly, whether the death of the deceased was the direct result of any such culpable negligence. Evidence was recorded by the learned C. P. M. Mr. Gehani, but arguments were heard and case was disposed off by Mr. Vakil, the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, on the formerss retirement. He acquitted accused No. 1, but conviction accused No. 2, and sentenced her to pay a fine Rs. 2,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six month. Accused No. 2 challenges her conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 1972. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 1972, against the acquittal of accused No. 1. The learned Magistrate found that Dr. Mukhatiar (D. W. 4) and Dr. Gokhale (D.W.5) had given false evidence deliberately and had directed notices to be issued to them under section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to show cause why they should not be tried for offence of perjury. After the written statements were submitted by these two witnessess, the learned Magistrate discharged the said notices by his order dated 20th June, 1972. The complainant has challenged the validity of that order in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 673 and 674 of 1972. After the written statements were submitted by these two witnessess, the learned Magistrate discharged the said notices by his order dated 20th June, 1972. The complainant has challenged the validity of that order in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 673 and 674 of 1972. The trial Magistrate also had called upon accused No.1 under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, to show cause why he should not be tired for an offence of fabrication of records. The trial Magistrate ultimately discharged the said notice also. The complainant challenges the validity of that order in Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 1972. 7. Now, the charge consists of two parts. First part deals with the culpable negligence in infusing of the Glucose. According to the Complainant accused No.1 was not present at this stage and his negligence lay in leaving this important work to the nurse, accused No. 2. Dr. Karamchandani, the complainants only expert witness, however, says that any qualified nurse could have undertaken this job, even without the presence of the doctor. Want of her qualification, however, is not specifically made the basis either in the complaint or in the charge, nor any evidence is directed to indicate that she was not so qualified. The Magistrate has found that she was a qualified nurse, but holds her to be not qualified for this job because infusion of Glucose was not among the subject of her training. It is not knowing why infusion of Glucose is assumed to need special training. Mr. Kamat the learned Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Nagrani, the learned Counsel for the complainant, could not explain the basis of this approach. It is unnecessary to persue this point, as the learned Magistrate has not relied on this supposed want of her qualification to hold accused No. 2 negligent. He has relied on the prevalent practice to absolve accused No. 1 of the charge of negligence on this count . In our opinion, accused No. 2 is not proved to have been not qualified for infusion of Glucose. The proved practice of the doctors leaving this job to the nurses only goes to confirm that she must have been qualified. In our opinion, accused No. 2 is not proved to have been not qualified for infusion of Glucose. The proved practice of the doctors leaving this job to the nurses only goes to confirm that she must have been qualified. In leaving this job to accused No. 2, assuming that accused No. 1 was not present, and by infusing the Glucose herself, assuming that accused No 2 did it on her own, none of the accused can be said to have acted negligently. Both the accused, however, assert that infusing process was done by accused No. 1. Even trial Magistrate has rejected this say of the accused. Even if we accept this say of accused No 1, and further find any negligence in the process of infusing, accused No. 1 still cannot be found guilty of negligence, as he was not called upon to face or answer any such case under this part of the charge, according to the complainants own case. 8. Coming to the prosecution case against accused No. 2 under this part of the charge, the learned Magistrate found her guilty of culpable negligence because--- (1) She left the room without waiting for some time to watch reactions. (2) She did not return to room to attend to the patient and remove the needle even when Anil informed about shiverings and uneasiness, twice by Anil. (3) She did not remove the needle even when the complainant brought her to the room and insisted on such removal. (4) Also handled the infusion process carelessly thereby hastening the process of dripping. According to both these witnesses, they had to wait for an hour after they reached the hospital as per the instructions of Dr. Dalal and accused No. 2 came with a tray after Maker was admitted in the room. According to them, accused No. 1 was not present at all, when Glucose was given and all this was done by accused No. 2. This evidence also shows that the complainant left the room, when accused No. 2 gave her a slip and asked to purchase medicines. What, happened in the room and how accused No. 2 infused the Glucose was conveyed to the complainant by Anil, who alone was in the room. Evidence of the complainant and Anil, however, is far from satisfactory. This evidence also shows that the complainant left the room, when accused No. 2 gave her a slip and asked to purchase medicines. What, happened in the room and how accused No. 2 infused the Glucose was conveyed to the complainant by Anil, who alone was in the room. Evidence of the complainant and Anil, however, is far from satisfactory. Anil says that after temperature and blood precure was taken by accused No. 2, she asked him to hold the arm of his father and on his doing so, she inserted the needle in his arm connecting it with the Glucose bottle arranged on the stand. He asserts that accused No. 2 and he alone were present in the room. But the complainant spoke of the Ward Boy also who had carried the bottle stand in the room. Anil does not even refer to the Ward Boy. This raises a suspicion, if such omission is deliberate to emphasise the absence of anyone, other, than himself and the nurse in the room, and thereby eliminate the presence of accused No. 1. He, no doubt, tries to show as though he contacted accused No. 2 twice and insisted on her return to the room, after conveying the fathers message of shivering and uneasiness at the interval of four minutes. The trial Magistrate has not believed him on this point and for good reason. This introduction of one more imaginary contact with accused No. 2 after starting of rigours goes to show how the witness is prone to twist and exaggerate. This apart, it is not even suggested that she was chitchatting or whiling away time and not attending to other patients. 9. His and complainants story that, not accused No. 2, but accused No. 1 removed the needle is also not believed by the trial Court. The contents of Exhibit 10, the call entry made by accused No. 2 contemporaneously, gives lie to this story. The entry recital indicates that she had already removed the needle even before accused No. 1 was called under this call. It is not even suggested that the entry was not genuine. This exposes the contrary assertions of both the witnesses to grave doubts. This also indicates the design on the part of the both to twist the facts with some motive. It is not even suggested that the entry was not genuine. This exposes the contrary assertions of both the witnesses to grave doubts. This also indicates the design on the part of the both to twist the facts with some motive. This also further shows that their story that accused No. 2 refused to remove the needle in spite of their requests to do so and in spite of the continued rigours of the patient is also not free from doubts. 10. The story of the both that infusion of Glucose continued for 20-25 minutes also does not appear to be correct. The learned Magistrate completely relied on the calculation of timings deposed to by Anil. Anil says that shivering started after four minutes of the insertion of the needle and he was asked by his father to call the nurse. He claims to have called her again after 4-5 minutes, and thereafter went to call his mother after another five minutes at the instance of his father. Thereafter mother got accused No. 2 in the room, who went to call accused No. I. Anil has thus calculated 20-25 minutes till the needle was removed by accused No. 1 on his arrival. The same estimate is confirmed by the complainant and accepted by the learned Magistrate without realising that he had himself not accepted their story that Anil had called accused No. 2 twice and the needle was removed by accused No. 2 herself before accused No. 1 came and even call for him was registered. How faulty this calculation of timings is can be demonstrated if their other estimates are taken into account. According to Anil, his mother was only 5-10 minutes in the room after the admission of his father in the room and before she left for purchase of medicine. Complainants estimate of this time varied for quarter of an hour to three-fourths of an hour. His estimate that he entered the room at 7.00 p.m. or reached home at 9.00 p.m. also reflects a gross miscalculation of timings. Entry in the Hospital Register (Exh. 15) shows that the patient was admitted at 8.00 p.m. Call entry (Exh. Complainants estimate of this time varied for quarter of an hour to three-fourths of an hour. His estimate that he entered the room at 7.00 p.m. or reached home at 9.00 p.m. also reflects a gross miscalculation of timings. Entry in the Hospital Register (Exh. 15) shows that the patient was admitted at 8.00 p.m. Call entry (Exh. 10) made by accused No. 2 for calling accused No. 1 indicates that it was made after the earlier entry of 8.45 p.m. Anil claims to have been present in the room, when accused No. 1 came in response to this call which could not happen before 9.00 p.m. How could Anil has reached home at 9.00 p.m. then? 11. Complainants case that Glucose bottle was found to be empty up to 2 1/2" also is another instance either of gross miscalculation or deliberate mis-statement. It appears that bottles are always kept empty to the extent of two inches for the air. Mr. Kotwal demonstrated this by producing few sealed bottles in this Court. This was deposed to by few doctor defence witnesses, though it was not put to P.W. 5 Dr. Karamchandani. We were inclined to take additional evidence on the crucial point. But Mr. Nagrani, after instructions from the complainant, pleaded his inability to dispute this before us. Thus underlying true assumption that (1) dripping continued 25 minutes and (2) 2 1/2" of the bottle or 8 ounces of Glucose was infused in the body and consequential finding that dripping process was accelerated or hastened, are thus entirely unfounded. Finding of negligence of accused No. 2 on this count is thoroughly unwarranted. 12. The learned Magistrate has found that accused No. 2 did not care to wait to watch the reaction of the Glucose. This finding appears to us to be without any basis in evidence. The sole witness Anil on this point has not said so in so many words. He only says that she left the room after inserting the needle. He does not say, after how long time. It is not possible to hold that she left "immediately" merely from his estimate of shivering being started after 4-5 minutes. We have discussed why we are reluctant to rely on his estimate of timings. We are also unable to hold that dripping process continued for 20-25 minutes. He does not say, after how long time. It is not possible to hold that she left "immediately" merely from his estimate of shivering being started after 4-5 minutes. We have discussed why we are reluctant to rely on his estimate of timings. We are also unable to hold that dripping process continued for 20-25 minutes. The complaint (Exhibit 5) as also the report in Blitz dated 2-10-1969 admitted to have been based on the complainants account does not make any reference to accused No. 2 having not waited to watch the reaction or the continuance of the dripping for 25 minutes. This really does not seem to have struck anybody till Dr. Karamchandani was contacted. The learned Magistrate failed to notice that this was all an after-thought. 13. Both the complainant and her son Anil assert that accused No. 1 was not at all in the room since the time they entered the room till he came on the scene, after accused No. 2 called him to remove the needle from the arm of the deceased. This seems to have been the complainants case right from the beginning, even when the news report appeared in the Blitz (Exh. 1). A few factors militate against its truthfulness. Admittedly the slip of prescription of medicines alleged to have been given to her by accused No. 2, requiring her to leave the room for purchase thereof was signed by accused No. 1. She does not disclose when and where accused No. 1 signed it, if he was not in the room then, and how could she know that it was signed by accused No. 1. She even does not remember what happened to the said slip after the purchase of medicines. She does not say a word by way of explanation. It is difficult to believe that such a slip could have been kept ready in advance by accused No. 1 on learning about the impending arrival of the patient from Dr. Dalal, when it took about an hour to secure from for the patient. Secondly, no such medicine could have been prescribed without examining the patient and ascertaining some facts from him. It is not the prosecution case that history was ascertained by the nurse, accused No. 2, and she secured the slip after going out to accused No. 1. Dalal, when it took about an hour to secure from for the patient. Secondly, no such medicine could have been prescribed without examining the patient and ascertaining some facts from him. It is not the prosecution case that history was ascertained by the nurse, accused No. 2, and she secured the slip after going out to accused No. 1. Signature of accused No. 1 on the slip goes a long way to probablise the defence case that accused No. 1 was present at least in the beginning. Thirdly, writing on Exhibit 2, the case papers, is claimed by accused No. 1 to have been in his own hand-writing. Now, such case papers, as the contents indicate, record some preliminary findings about the patient by the attending doctor even before any treatment is given. The history sheet is at Exhibit 3. Contents indicate that the same were written after the admission, after asking the patient himself. The very first entry of exhibit 2 pertains to the temperature and blood pressure of the deceased. Reference is also found to urine reports. Both the complainant and Anil admit that temperature and blood pressure of the deceased were taken before Glucose saline was administered. According to both, however, this was done by accused No. 2. Curiously enough, Anil does not say that the same were noted any where while Complainant speaks of its record without disclosing who made and on which papers. Attention of the complainant was drawn towards it in cross-examination, but she did not suggest that Exhibit 2 was not that record nor its genuineness is ever disputed. The learned Magistrate also has not doubted its genuineness excepting as to the reference to Dr. Gokhales arrival at 11.30 p.m. on 26th. The witnesses did not even risk saying that these entries were made by accused No. 2. In our opinion, presence of these entries in Exhibit 2 and absence of any indication as to where the temperature and blood pressure were recorded, also go a long way to indicate that accused No. 1 was present in the room, when the blood pressure and temperature were taken and he himself made a record thereof in Exhibit 2 as also history sheet exhibit 3. Reluctance to shell light on the details both by the complainant and Anil on this point betrays their anxiety to supplies facts indicating presence of accused No. 1. 14. Reluctance to shell light on the details both by the complainant and Anil on this point betrays their anxiety to supplies facts indicating presence of accused No. 1. 14. D. W. 4 Mukhatiar has also produced an extract of the register of patients (Exh-15). According to Dr. Mukhatiar, the entries therein are made in the hands of accused No. 1. The register is claimed to have been maintained by Dr. Mukhatiar in the ordinary course of business, when the patients enter in the hospital. The time of admission of Maker is shown to be 8.00 p.m. on 26th August. This really accords with the timings of the admission as also administration of Glucose saline stated by the accused. We have already made reference to the call register (Exh. 10) and indicated that Glucose must have been administered at 8.30 p.m. If the entry in the register of patients is made by accused No, 1, as it deposed to by Dr. Mukhatiar, the same also is a pointer to the presence of accused No. 1 in the room. This may not prove that accused No. 1 himself inserted the needle and infused the Glucose or he was present at that stage also. But this falsehood on the part of the prosecution witnesses makes it difficult to rely on their word that accused No. 2, and not accused No. 1, infused the Glucose. 15. There is, however, one small circumstance which probablises even infusion of the Glucose by accused No. 1. Consistent evidence of the complainant and Anil is that even after accused No. 2 was brought to the room by the complainant, after her return from the Chemists Shop, she declined to remove the needle till she got instructions from accused No. 1. Why should she require instructions of accused No. 1 in spite of adverse reactions, if she had herself, and not accused No. 1, started the infusion process? Thus the story that, not accused No. 1, but accused No. 2 attended to the patient right from the beginning to the stage till accused No. 1 came in response to the call at Exhibit 10, does not appear to be true or at any rate, not free from suspicion. 16. The complainant asserted in her complaint that the deceased was not suffering from jaundice. The urine report (Exh. M), however, gives a lie to this assertion of the complainant. Dr. 16. The complainant asserted in her complaint that the deceased was not suffering from jaundice. The urine report (Exh. M), however, gives a lie to this assertion of the complainant. Dr. Karamchandani admits that the said report dated 25th August does indicate that the deceased was suffering from jaundice. She was unable to explain this, when her attention was drawn in cross-examination. She was also evasive when questions were put to her as to whether the said urine report dated 25th, August was given by her to accused No. 1 or not, when the patient was admitted in the Hospital room. Now, it is common ground that this urine report was obtained from this very Hospital at the instance of one Dr. (Mrs.) Sahiar, who was consulted by the deceased without informing his family doctor, Dr. Dalal, and it was with her when she went to the Hospital along with her husband on 26th. But in the beginning she pretended that this report remained with-her till the same was given by her to Dr. Dalal on 27th. In further cross-examination she explained it by saying that the said report was lying on the table near the patient in the said room. This explanation also appears to have been trotted out by her when confronted with references to its findings in Exhibit 2, the case papers. We have indicated how Exhibit 2 appears to us to have been written by accused No. 1, as soon as the patient was admitted in the hospital. Her reluctance to admit this fact obviously appears to have been inspired from her anxiety to dispute accused No. 1s presence in the room at the start. Her assertion that no Oxygen was given to the patient on 26th night is also belied by hospital records. No doubt, case papers (Exh. 2) is silent on the point. But evidence indicates that everything is not necessarily entered in the case papers of the Hospital. She asserted in the beginning that she had not told the facts to anyone till her complaint dated 7-10-1969. However, when her attention was drawn to the reported item of the Blitz issue dated 2-10-1969 (Exh. 1), she was constrained to admit that she had made the statements and given the photos to the representative of the newspapers. She gave an impression as though she had contacted Dr. However, when her attention was drawn to the reported item of the Blitz issue dated 2-10-1969 (Exh. 1), she was constrained to admit that she had made the statements and given the photos to the representative of the newspapers. She gave an impression as though she had contacted Dr. Karamchanani only once and that too all alone. Dr. Karamchandani, however, speaks of her three visits and that too with a journalist Mangal Singh known to him. Giving such a report to news-papers or contacting the doctor thrice by itself is in no manner objectionable. But her reluctance to admit these plain facts betrays lack of candour and anxiety to suppress facts which makes us slow to rely on her word. It is true that journalists also serve the public cause by giving publicity to the lapses of the public institutions. It is not, however, possible to ignore the twists and turns such news is ordinarily liable to be subjected. In this view, other controversies recede into background and do not call for comments. 17. Next question is : Does Dr. Karamchandanis evidence go to prove any negligence on the part of the accused? This being the case of negligence in medical treatment, evidence of medical experts by reference to symptoms and treatment given is ordinarily more important than the evidence of layman as to overt acts of commission and omission of the accused. The trial Magistrate appears to have been very much impressed by him and placed much reliance on him. However, he has himself declined to accept Karamchandanis opinion about the precaution for suppression of "Immuno sensitive". Dr. Sathe, D. W. 1, asserts emphatically to the contrary. It is also not supported by any standard authority. Mr. Kamat and Mr. Nagrani had very little to say against this finding of the trial Court. Then admittedly the complainant, her Advocate and Dr. Karamchandani remained under the impression that Glucose saline was infused in the body though in fact the Hospital record and even the recitals in the complaint indicated that only Glucose was administered. Evidence of the complainant commenced from 1-7-1970 and that of Dr. Karamchandani from 23-6-1970. This mistake was not discovered till 8-10-1970, when cross-examination was interrupted and evidence-in-chief was recorded to get it clarified that infusion of Glucose could also have the same effect and was subject to the same precautions. Evidence of the complainant commenced from 1-7-1970 and that of Dr. Karamchandani from 23-6-1970. This mistake was not discovered till 8-10-1970, when cross-examination was interrupted and evidence-in-chief was recorded to get it clarified that infusion of Glucose could also have the same effect and was subject to the same precautions. This betrays woeful indifference in ascertaining the true facts before even evidence starts. Dr. Karamchandani admits that he had no occasion to peruse the hospital records till he entered the witness-box. He claims to have relied entirely on what the complainant orally told him and the four reports, Exhibits A and M, urine reports, dated 3-7-1969 and 25-8-1969 respectively and blood reports N-l and N-2 prepared on 27th and 28th August, after admission of the deceased to the Hospital. His belated claim to have also seen blood report Exhibit P dated 28-8-1969 under the stress of cross-examination is open to doubt. So is his claim in regard to Exhibits N-l and N-2. The same were seized by the police and copies thereof are not claimed to have been obtained by the complainant. He admits of many material facts having been withheld by the complainant as at pages 31, 32 and 45 of the notes of his evidence. The complainants story itself appears to us to be biased, tainted by bitterness and anger. His evidence, thus based on wrong or defective premises can hardly be of any use to the prosecution. It is unnecessary to refer to several fatal admissions in his cross-examination. It is note-worthy that Dr. Karamchandani does not shed light on how much quantity of Glucose can cause adverse reaction or shock or can be fatal and how much quantity can be said to have entered in his body. This becomes necessary once the story of 8 ounces quantity and 25 minutes dripping is excluded from consideration. His evidence also does not show how much time it requires to notice adverse reaction. He toned down his assertion that infusion of Glucose intravenously by itself could be fatal. He having no hospital experience for 25 years cannot say the extent of cases of such possible adverse reactions to indicate the degree of care and precaution. 18. His evidence also does not show how much time it requires to notice adverse reaction. He toned down his assertion that infusion of Glucose intravenously by itself could be fatal. He having no hospital experience for 25 years cannot say the extent of cases of such possible adverse reactions to indicate the degree of care and precaution. 18. As to the second part of the charge, accused No. 2, the nurse, does not come into the picture, excepting for her alleged refusal to return to the patient on being called by Anil twice and refusal to remove the needle till accused No. 1 arrived. We have already rejected the complainants story on this count. Dr. Karamchandani had to concede that treatment given by accused No. 1 thereafter was correct, excepting for one Teramycine injection. But he does not say that by itself could be fatal. His story that the deceased went into coma at 2.00 a.m. on 27th is not borne out by the hospital record and is based entirely on oral account of the complainant. The word of the layman like the complainant can at best indicate her belief and not the dependable evidence of it in all medical matters. Even if the defence story of Dr. Gokhale having treated the deceased at 11 30 am, on 26th is disbelieved, it is difficult to decide what the pre-coma period is and that the same continued till Dr. Sathe arrived at 11.30 a.m. on 27th, who is admitted to have given best treatment. There is no material to find negligence on the part of any one of the accused. Mr. Kamat and Mr. Nagrani could not draw our attention to any. 19. Even if all this is ignored and it is assumed that both the accused were negligent, the conviction for the offence under section 304-A will not be possible unless the death of the patient is proved to have been caused directly by such negligence or that it was the proximate cause thereof. Cause of death shown in Hospital papers is Infective Hepatitis. The prosecution must show that this was not correct and reaction from Glucose and consequent shock was the cause. Dr. Karamchandani, the only prosecution witness in this behalf, had himself in terms admitted that he would not hazard any such opinion, viz. Cause of death shown in Hospital papers is Infective Hepatitis. The prosecution must show that this was not correct and reaction from Glucose and consequent shock was the cause. Dr. Karamchandani, the only prosecution witness in this behalf, had himself in terms admitted that he would not hazard any such opinion, viz. whether shock, or infective hepatitis, was the cause of death of Maker in the absence of postmortem findings. This admission by itself, in our opinion, was sufficient for the acquittal of both the accused. The learned trial Magistrate has made conflicting observation as to the shock being primary cause and also the ultimate cause of death of the victim. The learned Magistrate also seems to have assumed that infective hepatitis was caused by the initial shock resulting from the infusion of the Glucose. Even this finding does not amount to holding that shock was the direct and proximate cause of death. Shock may at the most be the indirect cause of death on this premises. It is well settled that indirect and remote cause does not afford basis for conviction under section 304 I. P. C. It would be enough to make a reference in this connection to (A.D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat)1, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1150 (Kurban Hussain v. State) 2, 67 Bom.L.R. 447 and (Suleman Rahiman v State)3, 70 Bom.L.R. 536 Secondly, Dr. Karamchandani only says that hepatitis may be caused from shock. It is not permissible to ignore the distinction between "may be" and "must be". Thirdly, the infirmities and invalidities with which the patient was already suffering even before he was admitted in the hospital are totally excluded from consideration by the learned Magistrate as also the possibility that impurity of the Glucose could also have been the cause of reactions. 20. This apart, absolute reliance placed by the learned Magistrate on the evidence of Dr. Karamchandani appears to us to be entirely unmerited. Admittedly, Dr. Karamchandani has been out of active practice since 1950. He does not have any hospital experience since then. He does not assert that such reactions are common or usual nor does he claim to have come across any such instances. Even if his entire opinion is accepted as correct, it still does not indicate to what extent such reactions are foreseeable or predictable. He does not have any hospital experience since then. He does not assert that such reactions are common or usual nor does he claim to have come across any such instances. Even if his entire opinion is accepted as correct, it still does not indicate to what extent such reactions are foreseeable or predictable. The extent of negligence after all must depend on expected possibilities and known frequencies of such reaction. He has not examined the deceased at any time. He did not have the advantage of perusing the hospital records till he entered the witness-box. While in the witness-box, he does not say that he perused the entire hospital record. Prior to coming to Court, he had only relied on the four reports at Exhibits M, N-l, N-2 and Exhibit A. His belated claim to have also examined Exhibit P along therewith is doubtful. It is doubtful whether Exhibits N-l and N-2 or even Exhibit P were ever shown to him before the stage of evidence, as they were part of the hospital records and were in police custody. Complainant did not say that copies thereof were obtained by her earlier. His dogmatic assertion that he could form opinion about the negligence of the accused merely from these five documents and on the incomplete one-sided and tainted account of the complainant rather goes to impair than inspire any confidence in his opinion. 21. It is unfortunate indeed that precious life of Maker is lost. Attending circumstances do give rise to strong suspicions against the attendants. Life of the patients in the hospitals is always in the hands of the doctors and nurses and any negligence on their part requires to be dealt with firmly. Probe into such negligence is fraught with certain handicaps as it involves more medical than criminological aspects. However, no conviction is possible without dependable evidence. Difficulties in the collection thereof can never justify dispensing therewith. Reputation and good name of the doctors and nurses must be a matter of as much concern as the lives of the patients under their care. Condemnation thereof is not advisable without firm foundations. The present case suffers from lack of such good and reliable evidence. It is unfortunate that suspicions were not immediately expressed and postmortem examination was not insisted. It is also unfortunate that police were not apprised immediately. Condemnation thereof is not advisable without firm foundations. The present case suffers from lack of such good and reliable evidence. It is unfortunate that suspicions were not immediately expressed and postmortem examination was not insisted. It is also unfortunate that police were not apprised immediately. Delay of five weeks in approaching the Court had made the probe still more difficult. Authenticity of hospital record does not appear to have been intended to be doubted . Mere hints at the trial and without any specific charges as to tampering thereof, or mere biased and tainted word of a layman like the complainant is far too inadequate to doubt its genuineness. It affords an effective shield to the defence unless treatment indicated therein itself is shown to be negligent. The complainant was ill-advised to allow herself to be approached by the journalists even before she thought of approaching police or the Court. It will be unrealistic to ignore the differences between the two examinations, i.e., by the journalist and agency of law and also its effects. Information intended for publicity in spite of the laudable object is liable to be subjected to twists and turns according to the exigencies of the situation and candour on the part of the concerned alone can remove the attending suspicions and indicate to what extent truth has escaped distortion. Unfortunately evidence in this case, as discussed, is far from satisfactory. It is inadequate to displace either the case set up in the hospital records or the say of the doctors. It is not possible either to uphold the conviction of accused No. 2 or set aside the acquittal of accused No. 1 or to justify action against the witnesses under section 479-A or even against accused No. 1 under section 476. 22. In result Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 1972 filed by accused No. 2 is allowed. Her convictions and sentences are set aside. Fine, if paid, be refunded. 23. Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 1972 filed by the State against the acquittal of accused No. 1 is dismissed. 24. Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 1972 filed by the complainants also dismissed. 25. Criminal Revision Application Nos. 673 and 674 of 1972 file by the complainant against the legality and validity of the orders of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate discharging notices against D. W. 4 Dr. Mukhatiar and D. W. 5 Dr. 24. Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 1972 filed by the complainants also dismissed. 25. Criminal Revision Application Nos. 673 and 674 of 1972 file by the complainant against the legality and validity of the orders of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate discharging notices against D. W. 4 Dr. Mukhatiar and D. W. 5 Dr. Gokhale also dismissed. 26. In view of dismissal of the State Appeal, no orders on Criminal Application No. 430 of 1972. ------