MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

 

Latest Legal News