1 2025:CGHC:38381 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1772 of 2025 Dr. Hariram Yadu S/o Shri Thakur Yadu Aged About 32 Years R/o 1026 /13, Ispat Nagar, Risali Bhilai, Tahsil And Durg (Chhattisgarh) --- Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station - Purani Bhilai, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent CRMP No. 2389 of 2025 1 - Dr. Samitraj Prasad S/o Shri C. S. Prasad Aged About 36 Years R/o 59/B, Maitri Vihar Supela, Police Station- Supela, District- Durg, C.G. 2 - Nirmala Yadav D/o Shri Ramkumar Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Shashtri Nagar, Zone- 2, Khursipar, Police Station- Khursipar, District- Durg, C.G. ---Petitioners Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station- Purani Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. --- Respondent For Petitioners : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Suraj Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Gov. Advocate Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.08.07 14:45:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 04/08/2025 1. Since both the petitions have arisen out of the same impugned order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Both the petitions under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed against the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg in Criminal Revision No.11/2025 whereby affirming the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the JMFC, Durg in Case No.367/2023, the criminal revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 01.11.2022, Mahesh Kumar Verma filed a Merg Intimation at Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg alleging that his grandson, Shivansh Verma, aged about 10 months was admitted to Siddhi Vinayak Children Hospital on 27.10.2022 for the treatment of cold and cough. When checked by Dr. S. R. Prasad, the child was found to be breathing heavily. He was admitted to the ICU room and given oxygen. Since then, the child was admitted and was being given medicines, due to which the child's health started improving. On 31.10.2022, the hospital staff nurse gave PRX AZITHROMYCIN FOR INJECTION US.P. BIO-500P to Shivansh, due to which he died at 06:40 pm. On the report, Dehati Merg Intimation was registered. The dead body of the child was subjected to PM which 3 was conducted by the Supela Hospital Doctor's team. During investigation, the spot incident was inspected, CCTV footage of the spot was obtained from Siddhi Vinayak Children Hospital Bhilai, investigation report was received from the Chief Medical Officer, information regarding hospital operation was taken from the Hospital, treatment papers of deceased Shivansh Verma were obtained, FSL report of the viscera of deceased Shivas Verma and report regarding injection PRX AZITHROMYCIN FOR INJECTION U.S.P. BIO-500P was obtained. On the date of incident, Dr. Vajas Kumar Verma was the medical director of Siddhi Vinayak Children Hospital who told that the treatment of deceased Shivansh Verma was done by BAMS Dr. Hariram Yadu and Nurse Nirmala Yadav under the direction of Dr. Samitraj Prasad. During investigation, information regarding the treatment was obtained from the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg and from Siddhi Vinayak Childrens Hospital and it was found that on the instructions of petitioner Dr. Samitraj Prasad and at the behest of BAMS Dr. Hariram Yadu, nurse Nirmala Yadav administered PRX AZITHROMYCIN FOR INJECTION U.S.P. BIO-500P to deceased Shivansh Verma who died due to the injection of BIO-500P dose. Negligence was shown in the treatment of deceased Shivansh Verma by nurse Nirmala Yadav, Dr. Hariram Yadav and Dr. Samitraj. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was presented before the concerned Court on 22.04.2023. On the order of the trial 4 Court, investigation in connection with other co-accused was carried out and supplementary charge sheet was presented before the trial Court on 09.06.2024. 4. The petitioners made written prayer for discharging them which was rejected vide order dated 29.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision i.e. Criminal Revision No.11/2025 which was dismissed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide impugned order dated 27.01.2025. On 30.01.2025, the JMFC, Bhilai framed particulars of offence against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Hence, both the petitions have been filed for quashing the orders dated 27.01.2025 and 30.01.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no ingredients of the offence u/s 304-A of IPC are available against the petitioners. She submits that conveying of instruction of allopathic doctor who is running the Nursing Home to the Nurse does not fall under the rash and negligent act causing death of a person. She submits that as per the duty roster, petitioner Dr. Hariram Yadu was not on duty at the Hospital and he being an Ayurvedic doctor has not given any instruction prescribing dosage of injection to nurse Nirmala Yadav. She further submits that as per the Joint Departmental Enquiry Compliance Memo dated 11.11.2022, the procedure has been mentioned but the Enquiry Committee has not given any opinion that any rash and negligence act has been done even by the Nurse on account of which the child died. She 5 submits that even if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, petitioner Dr. Samitraj has prescribed the dosage of Azithromycin rightly on the basis of the medical jurisprudence to the Nurse Nirmala Yadav which could not be said to be a direct result of rash and negligent act of the petitioners. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and discharging the petitioners from the charge framed against them. She submits that the investigating officer and the private complainant cannot always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to a rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A IPC. In support of her argument, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another, (2005) 6 SCC 1 and the decision of this High Court in the case of Dr. Prabhat Panigrahi & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & another passed on 01.05.2024 in CRMP No. 18 of 2023 and in the case of Dr. R. Jairam Iyer v. State of Chhattisgarh passed on 08.07.2015 in CRMP No. 765 of 2010. 6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the submission made by the counsel for petitioners, submits that the Revisional Court has rightly held that offence under Section 304A of IPC is a summons trial and there is no provision for discharge from it. She submits that as per the Joint Departmental Enquiry Compliance Report dated 11.11.2022, Dr. Samitraj Prasad 6 advised to give injection Azithromycin Injection (USP) BIO AZ 500, 50 mg od slowly but Dr. Hariram Yadu and nurse Nirmala gave to the deceased child inserting 10 ml water in Azithromycin Injection (USP) BIO AZ 500 and then 1 ml in pediaset 20 ml NS and diluted and gave the injection for 15 to 20 minutes after which child condition impaired. She submits that nurse Nirmala Yadav has not submitted her nursing degree and only on the basis of experience certificate she was employed in the Hospital. Siddhi Vinayak Hospital is licensed for allopathic treatment and Ayurvedic doctor cannot provide allopathic treatment. She further submits that as per the CCTV footage, the treatment was given by Dr. Hariram Yadu, Dr. Girish Sahu & Dr. Durga Soni under the guidance of Dr. Samitraj Prasad. There was a full negligence on the part of Dr. Samitraj Prasad, Dr. Hariram Yadu and nurse Nirmala Yadav for not following the medical guidelines as well as hospital administration. Therefore, considering all these facts, both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The case of the prosecution revolves around the death of 10- month-old Shivansh Verma, who was admitted to Siddhi Vinayak Hospital in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, for treatment of cold and cough. On 31.10.2022, the child was given an injection of PRX Azithromycin Injection U.S.P. BIO-500P, after which the child's condition deteriorated and he died at 6:40 pm. The forensic report confirms that the injection PRX Azithromycin Injection U.S.P. BIO- 7 500P was administered to the child. The argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that the Joint Enquiry Committee has not given any opinion of rash and negligence act done by the doctors and even the Nurse on account of which the child died. 9. However, the said Joint Enquiry Comittee report dated 11.11.2022 reflects that on 31.10.2022, the child’s health check-up was done by Dr. Samitraj Prasad at 5 pm. The child was experiencing continuous fever and cough. Hence, Dr. Samit Raj Prasad prescribed Inj. Azithromycin 50mg od slowly as an antibiotic and discontinued the earlier administered Inj. Amikacin. At 7 pm, duty doctor Hariram Yadav (BAMS CG2272AYURVED), staff nurse Aarti Sahu and nurse Kumari Nirmala Yadav administered Inj. Azithromycin 500mg vial to the child. They added 10ml of distilled water to the vial, took 1ml from it and diluted it in 20ml of NS in a pediaset. The injection was administered to the child over 15-20 minutes, after which the child had difficulty in breathing and the oxygen level started decreasing. The duty doctor informed Dr. Samitraj Prasad about the child's condition. Resuscitation was performed as per protocol, but the child was declared dead at 10:30 pm. Moreover, as per the report of Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Durg dated 06.12.2022, the death of child Shivansh Verma has been found to be due to negligence in health treatment. Therefore, the petitioners would not get the benefit of the judgments cited by them, on account of difference in facts and circumstances of the case. Considering all these 8 facts, this Court does not find any error or irregularity in framing of particulars of offence against the petitioners. 10. Thus, both the CRMPs deserve to be and are hereby dismissed at motion stage. 11. The Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai