Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 123 (JHR)

Lila Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-15

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the complainant appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The complainant appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated 31st March 2016, passed in S.T. No.325 of 2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj, whereby, the accused private respondents, who were facing the trial for the charges under Sections 308, 315 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted of the charges. 3. As this appeal is filed after an inordinate delay of 186 days, I.A. No.8573 of 2016 has been filed for condonation of delay, and another I.A. No.8572 of 2016 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal. 4. According to the case of the complainant appellant, as it appears from the impugned Judgment, that she had filed the complaint case in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, on 14.10.2008, alleging therein that the accused Nos.1 and 2 (i.e., the respondent Nos.2 & 3) were posted as Medical Officers and they were also running private clinic, in which the accused Nos. 3 and 4 (i.e., the respondents No.4 and 5) were working as nurses. The complainant, who was undergoing pregnancy of eight and half months, was admitted in their clinic on 13.8.2007 and it is alleged that she was given wrong treatment and in order to get the delivery, her body was pressed by the accused persons in absolutely wrong manner, giving birth to a girl child, due to which, she became unconscious and she was also given wrong treatment, due to which, she had to incur costs in her further treatment. It is stated in the impugned Judgment that during the pendency of the case, both the parties had settled the matter amicably, under which, the accused persons paid Rs.80,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards the expenditure of treatment incurred by her, and a compromise petition was also filed, which was on record. A petition was also filed on 1.12.2015 stating therein that the complainant appellant had now no claim against the accused persons and good feelings had been restored between them. A petition was also filed on 1.12.2015 stating therein that the complainant appellant had now no claim against the accused persons and good feelings had been restored between them. The impugned Judgment also shows that the husband of the complainant appellant, who was examined as PW 4, had admitted in the Court that his wife had received Rs.80,000/-, though he had supported the version of the complainant with respect of the improper treatment provided to her. On the basis of these materials on record, the Court below has acquitted the accused respondents from the charges. As such, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below worth interference in this acquittal appeal. 5. Since we do not find any reason for interference in the impugned Judgment, we also do not find any reason for condonation of delay of 186 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, there is no question of granting any leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal as well. As such, both the aforesaid interlocutory applications stand dismissed. 6. Consequently, the main acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, being barred by limitation, and also being devoid of any merit.