- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.147 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the Court below. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gobindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No.364 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.3581 of 2011, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have medically treated the wife of the informant and to have given her an injection, which proved fatal. The petitioner, admittedly, is not a qualified medical practitioner and he treated the wife of the informant and administered injection to her resulting in her death. The case was investigated by the police and the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC and after taking the cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session. In the Court of Session, the petitioner filed the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., stating that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioner and in view of the allegation, the case is made out only under Section 304A of the IPC. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below stating that the material in the case diary disclosed that there were sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the accused petitioner that the injection administered by the petitioner proved fatal. Accordingly the application filed by this petitioner was rejected by the Court below.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that the in view of the allegations against the petitioner, the case is made out only under Section 304A of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is nothing in the post mortem report to show that the death of the deceased was caused due to the injection given by the petitioner.;