The Bombay high court (HC) has suspended the 10-year sentence of an Ayurveda doctor who was convicted by a trial court for causing death of a patient after he performed a C-section operation on her, though he was allegedly not qualified to conduct the same.
A bench of justice SK Shinde, while hearing the interim application in the appeal filed by Dr Sachin Deshpande, was informed by advocate Aniket Nikam that the trial court had failed to consider the statement of a witness who confirmed that the operation had gone well and hence, HC should set aside the conviction.
Nikam further informed the court that the first accused in the case had been granted bail and hence, on the grounds of parity, his client must be granted bail while he awaited the trial at HC and his sentence suspended.
According to the prosecution, the woman who was pregnant for a second time had approached a nursing home owned by the first accused. The woman was a C-section delivery, to which her family agreed. On May 1, 2012, the operation and tubectomy was conducted by Dr Deshpande. After regaining consciousness, the woman began bleeding profusely and was shifted to another hospital where she died the next day. A case was registered under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Deshpande. Last year on September 29, the trial court convicted and sentenced Deshpande and also asked him to pay Rs2.5-lakh compensation to the victim’s husband.
While seeking the suspension of the sentence till his appeal was heard, Nikam submitted that the trial court had not considered all the facts placed before it and had passed the conviction order by overlooking the glaring contradiction, omission as well as admissions and improvements that were brought to the notice of the judge. Hence, the judgment/order was contrary to the principles of the Evidence Act and should be quashed.
{{/usCountry}}While seeking the suspension of the sentence till his appeal was heard, Nikam submitted that the trial court had not considered all the facts placed before it and had passed the conviction order by overlooking the glaring contradiction, omission as well as admissions and improvements that were brought to the notice of the judge. Hence, the judgment/order was contrary to the principles of the Evidence Act and should be quashed.
{{/usCountry}}After hearing the submissions the court observed, “In the consideration of the evidence on record and as the co-accused has been released on bail and further the applicant had not misused his liberty when granted bail and further appeal is likely to be heard in near futures, pending appeal impugned sentence is suspended…”