Summoning A Serious Affair, More So When Issued After Rejecting Closure Report: Allahabad HC Quashes Murder Case Against Doctor Couple

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a Doctor couple– who are also owners of a hospital in Rajepur–in a case where the deceased who had accompanied his mother in the hospital, was allegedly removed and later died in a road accident thereafter.

The high court passed the order while hearing a plea moved by the doctor couple against the summoning order of the magisterial court as well as the sessions court order which had rejected their revision plea against the summoning order.

Notably, the special investigation team probing the case had submitted its final report ruling out culpable homicide. The magisterial court in its order rejected final report and issued summons to the doctor couple and other accused. The couple moved a revision plea which was dismissed by the sessions court; subsequently they moved the high court. 

Observing that a detailed investigation was carried out by the SIT while issuing the Final Report, a single judge bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed,

“To summon is a serious affair and it becomes more serious when summon is issued after rejecting outcome of investigation i.e. a Final Report. The required reasons are missing in impugned order. Entire investigation i.e. by police, by Special Investigation Team along with Scientific Investigation could not be rejected merely for sake of it, rather there must be reasons to reject it however, such reasons are missing in impugned order".

Factual Background

The applicants are doctors who also run Singh Life Care Hospital Ltd, Rajepur in Ghazipur district. The complainant father lodged an FIR under IPC Sections 147(rioting), 302(murder), 323(voluntarily causing hurt to a person) and 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) alleging death of his son by unknown person at the hospital in the intervening night of September 18-19, 2015. In the post mortem report, it was found that cause of death was 'Coma and Haemorrhagic shock as a result of Ante-Mortem Injuries'.

It was alleged in the FIR that the complainant, had admitted his wife into the hospital for surgery. He claimed that when his son had gone to call the doctor couple, they allegedly beat him up with the intention of killing him; it was claimed that when the complainant's daughter and nephew ran into the direction of the noise, the found that the couple and three staff members were beating his son in a room. He claimed that the deceased was beaten up so much that he "died on the spot".

Complainant, his daughter and his nephew claimed to be eye-witnesses of the incident. The order notes that the nephew of the complainant–who had given a different version as compared to the complainant and his daughter–had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before SIT that initially some dispute arose between deceased and attendants of other patients, which was intervened by staff of the hospital. Thereafter deceased was taken outside the hospital and left alone and he later died due to an accident.

Thereafter, Special Investigation Team took over the case and several witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Lie detector test and Narco tests were conducted on 4 witnesses, including the daughter and the nephew. In the Final Report, it was stated that the deceased died due to road accident and there was no culpable homicide.

The Complainant filed a protest petition against the Final Report wherein the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur after considering the protest petition and the final report went on to reject the outcome of the Final Report and issued summons to the applicants and others. Revision against this order was dismissed by the sessions court. The doctor couple thereafter approached the High Court.

Findings

The High Court observed that the investigation was detailed. Regarding the facts, it was observed that the deceased was left outside the hospital by the staff as well as his attendants and he met with a road accident.

The court observed that to reject the Final report and take cognizance thereafter, the CJM ought to have given reasons in support of issuing summons to the applicants.

“In case, investigation was not proper, appropriate direction ought to be passed for further investigation or to consider the protest petition as a complaint case, but same was not adopted,” observed the Court.

The court said that it appeared that initially the deceased had an altercation with the attendant of a patient at the Hospital. At relevant time, staff of hospital interfered and asked him to go out and after sometime he was found dead.

"During investigation, witnesses saw how death occurred, whereas staff of hospital and an attendant of patient has claimed themselves to be an eyewitness that they witnessed entire occurrence that after initial commotion, deceased went outside the hospital, where he died due to an accident with a vehicle. Despite efforts, vehicle was not recovered/identified," the high court said.

Perusing the witness statements and Lie detector test and Narco test reports, the Court held that the same could not be completely rejected by the Trial Court only because certain questions were not asked and that certain things as stated could not have happened. It was observed that the scientific tests and witness statements were not properly analysed by the Trial Court while passing the summoning order.

The Court held that once the daughter of the complainant had said in her test that she had not seen the applicants at the time of occurrence and did not recognize them, summons against them should not have been issued.

"The Chief Judicial Magistrate has placed reliance on statements of complainant and his daughter however, failed to appreciate that complainant has denied himself to be an eyewitness and his daughter has denied involvement of Doctor Couple in occurrence. She even don't recognize them. On basis of such evidence, summoning order could not legally survive as other material such as evidence of relatives of deceased, staff of hospital, result of scientific test, doctor's statement, expert opinion are sufficient that it was a case of accident and not a case of homicide, such nature of evidence could not be ignored," the high court said. 

Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings against the couple, along with four other persons who were not before the Court as a detailed analysis of the evidence had been done by the Court.

Case Title: Dr. Rajesh Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 600 of 2020 ]

Click Here To Read/Download Order