A criminal revision against the discharge of two private doctors who treated a young rape victim. The court held doctors had no legal duty to report under CrPC Section 39 and the doctors were rightly discharged for Section 202 IPC.
Criminal Revision Application was dismissed and discharge of accused doctors was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1) (901) Revn 155/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 155 OF 2012
The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner Vs. Lahu Shripati Kadam & Anr. .. Respondents
Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the Petitioner-State. None for the Respondents.
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2013.
P.C.
(2) (901) Revn 155/12
possible because of infection. It further shows vital signs normal and no other abnormalities detected. The case papers further show that ointment of betadine and soframycin were applied to the victim child.
(3) (901) Revn 155/12
Nos.3 & 4 has been made for the first time by the grand-mother on 07.07.2011 after the FIR was recorded on 06.07.2011. It is made by the victim child herself, who is the complainant, on 13.07.2011. The case is indeed an after thought.
202. Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform. - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
39. Public to give information of certain offence. - (1) Every person, aware of the commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit, any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely:-
(i) sections 121 to 126, both inclusive, and section 130 (that is to say, offences against the State specified in Chapter VI of the said Code);
(ii) sections 143, 144, 145, 147 and 148 (that is to say, offences against the public tranquility specified in Chapter VIII of the said Code);
(iii) sections 161 to 165-A, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to illegal gratification);
(iv) sections 272 to 278, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to adulteration of food and drugs, etc.);
(v) sections 302, 303 and 304 (that is to say, offences affecting life);
(vi) section 382 (that is to say, offence of theft aftr preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing o the theft);
(vii) section 392 to 399, both inclusive, and section 402 (that
(4) (901) Revn 155/12
is to say, offences of robbery and dacoity);
(viii) section 409 (that is to say, offence relating to criminal breach of trust by public servant, etc.);
(ix) sections 431 to 439, both inclusive (that is to say, offences of mischief against property); (x) sections 449 and 450 (that is to say, offence of housetrespass);
(xi) sections 456 to 460, both inclusive (that is to say, offences of lurking house-trespass); and
(xii) sections 489-A to 489-E, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to currency notes and bank notes),
shall, in the absence of any reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie upon the person so aware, forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or police officer of such commission or intention.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term, “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether private doctors having examined a child in a rape case are legally bound to inform the police under Section 39 CrPC.
Whether the case against doctors for intentional omission to give information under Section 202 IPC is sustainable.
Whether a discharge application in respect of the doctors was proper.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Lahu Shripati Kadam
Second Respondent
Roshan Dalvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
