2013 Wenlock Hospital Murder: Karnataka High Court Orders Action Against District Surgeon & IO For 'Serious Lapses' In Probe

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State's Health and Home Secretaries to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Surgeon of Wenlock Hospital and a Police Circle Inspector for 'serious lapses' in reporting and investigating a murder that occurred within hospital premises in 2013. While upholding the acquittal of the accused by a Mangalore Sessions Court in 2017, a Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T expressed shock that despite a police outpost being present within the hospital and officers arriving at the scene shortly after the initial assault, no FIR was registered for over 13 hours.“…It is also important to note that when the victim died at 11:40 p.m., no MLC was made and no intimation was given either to the outpost police or to the jurisdictional police and after thought only after lapse of almost 13 hours, the complaint was lodged and all these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court…”, the division bench observed in the order that the complaint was lodged only through the security guard on the next day."Having re-assessed the material available on record and also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, we do not find any ground to comes to a other conclusion and benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and particularly the victim was not either the relative or any employee and even prosecution also not collected any material before the Court to that effect and considering overall evidence available on record, the trial judge appreciated both oral and documentary evidence from paragraph No.29 to paragraph No.37 and rightly comes to the conclusion that prosecution has not made out any case...hence, there is a force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent-Amicus curiae that there was a delay in lodging the complaint...and also there was an improvement in the evidence of P.W.1. This Court already comes to the conclusion that very presence at the time of assaulting of victim by the accused was doubtful and explanation was given in 313 statement and Trial Court also considered all the material available on record" the bench added.According to the prosecution, in August 2013, the accused, an inpatient at Wenlock District Hospital, allegedly attacked his deceased-attender for defecating near the beds. The accused, despite the intervention from the security guard, had allegedly chased the attender and assaulted him, leading to his death.The trial court, however, considered the aspect of the circumcision surgery undergone by the accused on the same day, making a fully-fledged attack on the deceased attender by the accused less likely. Moreover, the nature of wounds on the deceased, such as extensive bilateral rib fractures, indicated a hard fall from the stairs rather than a few kicks by the accused; the division bench concurred with the trial court.Before the High Court, the State argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate the prosecution's evidence in its entirety, including the eye witnesses produced. The amicus curiae, assisting the court for the respondent, claimed that the FIR was registered 15 hours later, though the attender succumbed to death on the previous night. The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 325, 341 and 302 (murder) IPC. “…having considered Section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is a legal duty (of a medical practitioner) to inform and consequently the head of the Institution to report the occurrence of an offence to the nearest police station immediately and even though P.W.11 [District Surgeon & Superintendent] admits that immediately rushed to the hospital after receipt of information, but not informed the same and Section 39 of Cr.P.C is very clear…”, the court opined that the District Superintendent's omission to give notice to a public servant immediately after the incident was a fatal flaw.Under Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code, intentional omission to report information to the police is an offence that will be attracted in the current scenario, the court added. The court has ordered the initiation of proceedings against the District Superintendent for the lapses in reporting the alleged murder.The court also chastised the investigating police officer for his lackadaisical attitude in handling a cognisable offence, even when the out-post police had reached the location soon after the alleged assault at night. Neither the police inspector nor the police outpost outside had been swift about recording the statements or reporting the information, the court added.“…this admission on the part of P.W.12[police inspector] is very clear that inspite of information[about cognizable offence] was received, he did not go to the hospital and even did not send the SHO or any police personnel to the hospital also and even after receipt of information, he did not enquire into the matter immediately”, the court remarked...

2013 Wenlock Hospital Murder: Karnataka High Court Orders Action Against District Surgeon & IO For 'Serious Lapses' In Probe

Sebin James

Tags