- (1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 12.12.2008 setting aside the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer dated 02.11.2007. The latter order had set aside the order of cognizance dated 30.05.2002 against the appellant under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") passed by the Judicial Magistrate.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reading the complaint as it is, on the very face of it no offence is made out under Section 304A, IPC. There is no allegation whatsoever of any medical negligence against the appellant who is an anesthetist at a government hospital. The appellant had only administered anesthesia injection to the wife of respondent no.2 to facilitate a caesarian delivery. Loss of consciousness is a natural consequence of administering the injection. It cannot constitute negligence. The surgery was to be performed by respondent no.3. The allegations themselves state that the lady developed complications and had to be shifted to a bigger hospital at Ajmer where she required a pace maker. In these circumstances if the new born child did not survive, the appellant cannot be held responsible by any reasonable standard of prudence. Reliance is placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Another, (2005)6 SCC 1.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant is stated to have pressurised the complainant to come to his wife "?s private clinic for the delivery. The allegation is of improper administration of anesthetic injection resulting in the death of the child soon after delivery. In any event, these are matters to be examined in trial.;