Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Charges Can Also Be Framed on the Basis of Strong Suspicion - Appreciation of Evidence, at the Stage of Discharge is Impermissible: Jharkhand High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand of the Jharkhand High Court, it was held that marshalling and appreciation of evidence at the stage of discharge is impermissible, leading to the acquittal of Dr. Punam Sinha, who was accused of medical negligence under Sections 308 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case revolved around charges of criminal negligence against Dr. Punam Sinha, following allegations that surgical materials were left inside the complainant, Savita Devi, post-operation, causing severe health complications. The complaint also included charges of criminal intimidation.

Evidence Review: The court noted the absence of any expert medical evidence linking Dr. Sinha directly to the alleged negligence. Justice Chand highlighted, "At the stage of discharge, the court is not to appreciate the evidence on record," referencing decisions from several apex court rulings to assert that the charges should be framed based on strong suspicion alone.

Legal Standards for Discharge: The court extensively discussed the legal standards applicable at the pre-trial stage, specifically noting that a detailed examination of evidence at this stage was not appropriate. "Charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion," Justice Chand remarked, citing the Supreme Court’s position in the case of Palwinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh [(2008) 14 SCC 504].

Application of Law to Facts: Upon reviewing the facts and allegations, the court found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish that Dr. Sinha had the intent or knowledge required under Section 308 IPC to cause the grievous harm alleged. "The appreciation of evidence, at the stage of discharge is impermissible what is required is to be seen is whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused," Justice Chand explained.

The court allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Dr. Sinha, setting aside the lower court’s order dated February 25, 2023, which had rejected the discharge application. Dr. Sinha was discharged from the charges under Sections 308 and 338 IPC.

Date of Decision: April 12, 2024

Dr. Punam Sinha @ Punam Sinha vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr

 

Similar News