[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3783 OF 2001 Dr.Malini V.Nakhare ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.S.V.Kotwal advocate for applicant Mr.A.S.Shitole A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking discharge in Sessions Case No.291 of 1996 pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Pune. The said case is under Sections 304-A and 316 of IPC. 3. The applicant is a lady. She is a Doctor. Lavangibai the wife of the complainant was admitted to the hospital of the applicant i.e. Nakhare Hospital for delivery on 4.12.1995 at 7 p.m. At that time, Gangubai the mother of the complainant [-2-] and one relative Dhundibai were accompanying Lavangibai. On 5.12.2005 at about 5.30 a.m. Lavangibai started having labour pains, hence, she was kept on the stretcher for delivery. At that time, the mother of complainant was standing near the head of Lavangibai and Dhundibai was standing near the feet of Lavangibai. Dhundibai went to drink water. At that time, Lavangibai who was unable to bear labour pains, fell down from the stretcher on the floor. She started bleeding and she gave birth to a stillborn child. As there were complications, Lavangibai was shifted to another hospital where during treatment, she died. Hence, complaint came to be filed by the complainant against the petitioner. 4. It is seen that when Lavangibai started having labour pains, at that time, the mother of the complainant was standing near the heard of Lavangibai. As Lavangibai could not bear labour pains, she fell down from the stretcher, hence, there were complications. It cannot be said that there was any rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner. In fact, it was the mother of the complainant who was standing next to Lavangibai and [-3-] she did not take adequate care of Lavangibai. 5. The case also would not be covered under Section 316 of Cr.P.C. as there was no act on the part of the petitioner due to which, the death of the child was caused. The learned APP was unable to point out any material to show that the death of the child was caused on account of the act of the petitioner nor was she able to point out any material which shows that on account of any rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner, the death of the wife of the complainant and the child was caused. There is no sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner, hence the petitioner is discharged from both the offences. 5. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]