Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 643 (JHR)

Haradhan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2013-05-17

H.C.MISHRA

body2013
ORDER By the Court.- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 147 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr PC, has been rejected by the Court below. 3. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gobindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 364 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 3581 of 2011, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have medically treated the wife of the informant and to have given her an injection, which proved fatal. The petitioner, admittedly, is not a qualified medical practitioner and he treated the wife of the informant and administered injection to her resulting in her death. The case was investigated by the police and the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302, IPC and after taking the cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session. In the Court of Session, the petitioner filed the application under Section 227 of the Cr PC. stating that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioner and in view of the allegation, the case is made out only under Section 304-A of the IPC. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below stating that the material in the case diary disclosed that there were sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the accused petitioner that the injection administered by the petitioner proved fatal. Accordingly the application filed by this petitioner was rejected by the Court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that in view of the allegations against the petitioner, the case is made out only under Section 304-A of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is nothing in the post-mortem report to show that the death of the deceased was caused due to the injection given by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is nothing in the post-mortem report to show that the death of the deceased was caused due to the injection given by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, submitting that in the facts of the case, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is clearly made out against the petitioner, as it was found that without being the qualified medical practitioner, he gave the injection to the deceased, which proved fatal. 6. Section 300 of the IPC defines Murder in the following terms :- "Section 300. Murder. - Except in the case hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is cause is done with the intention of causing death, or- Secondly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Thirdly.-If it done with intention of causing such bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- Fourthly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous, that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." 7. The case of the petitioner clearly falls within the fourth category of Section 300, which defines murder. The petitioner knew full well that he was not qualified for practicing medicine, still he administered the medicine and injection to the deceased and at this stage it cannot be said that he was not knowing that his act was immensely dangerous, so as to likely to cause the death of the deceased, and he had no excuse for incurring the risk. 8. In the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed.