[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State By Sub-Inspector Of Police vs Prashanth. N @ Prashanth Nataraj on 18 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
CRL.A No. 1971 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1971 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)
AND:
PRASHANTH N. @ PRASHANTH NATARAJ
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. LATE R. NATARAJ
RESIDENT OF MANJUNATHA SADANA NANDIGUDDE
Digitally signed 1ST CROSS ROAD, JEPPU
by DEVIKA M BAPPAL
Location: HIGH MANGALURU-575 001.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SMT. P.V. KALPANA, AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 22-11-2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.151 OF 2013, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 325, 341 AND 302
OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
CRL.A No. 1971 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
1. Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State,
Smt. P.V. Kalpana, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the
respondent-accused and perused the material on record.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal
passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangaluru, in Sessions Case No.151 of 2013, for the offences
punishable under Sections 325, 341 and 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that on 06.08.2013 at 9.00 p.m., within the limits of Mangaluru
South Police Station, at Wenlock District Government Hospital,
Special Ward 21-24D, Ward No.24D, Bed No.3, the accused
was taking treatment as in-patient. Sri Kantappa, Attender of
the accused, passed faeces (motion) in between bed Nos.2
and 3. Hence, the accused got angry and assaulted Kantappa
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by his hands and
legs over his chest and abdomen, at that time, PW1-
Subramanya, Security Guard, intervened and the accused also
assaulted him with his hands and caused bodily pain. When
the deceased managed to escape from the hands of the
accused, the accused chased him, caught hold him and
assaulted him, as a result, the deceased suffered fracture of
ribs and succumbed to the injuries at 11.30 p.m. and
thereafter, the law was set in motion.
4. Based on the complaint-Ex.P1 given by PW1 on
07.08.2013, the Station House Officer of Pandesdhwara Police
Station registered a case, investigated the matter and filed the
charge-sheet against the accused. The accused did not plead
guilty and claims trial. Hence, the prosecution relied on the
evidence of PW1 to PW14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. On
closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C') and
he did not lead any defence evidence. The portion of the
statement of PW1 was confronted and marked as Ex.D1.
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court having considering the explanation
given by the accused, which is extracted at Paragraph No.29 of
its judgment, and also appreciating the evidence of PWs.1, 2,
4, 5, 6 and 11 at Paragraph Nos.32 to 37 in detail, doubted the
case of the prosecution and extended the benefit of doubt
considering the material inconsistency in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and there was also a delay in lodging
the complaint. The Trial Court also taken note of the
incident was taken place on 06.08.2013, but complaint
was lodged on next day 07.08.2013 at 12:30 p.m., and
also the accused was arrested in the night at 2:30 p.m.,
since he was taking treatment and taken note of the fact
that accused was subjected to surgery for chronic urinary
tract infection on that day and also taking into note of
medical evidence of ribs fracture and the injuries are
severe in nature extended the benefit in favour of the
accused. The Trial Court also taken note of evidence of
P.W.5 who treated the deceased at casualty and issued
wound certificate of the deceased as per Ex.P.9 also
opined that if a person fell down on the stairs forcefully by
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
facing down while running on the stairs may suffer injuries
referred in Ex.P.9, considering the admission on the part
of P.W.5 and also the post mortem evidence, comes to the
conclusion that the material not point out to the accused
and hence, acquitted the accused.
6. Being aggrieved by the acquittal judgment,
present appeal is filed before this Court. The main
contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant/State before this Court is that
Trial Court not considered the prosecution evidence in a
proper perspective and Trial Court comes to the wrong
conclusion that prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Even though Trial Court held that death
of the deceased was homicidal death and identity of the
deceased was also proved by the prosecution as not at all
considered the other corroborative evidence which
clinching connect the accused is also not considered. The
counsel would vehemently contend that the evidence of
P.W.1 who is the injured eye witness in the said incident
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
who was working as a security guard at Wenlock Hospital
and he has narrated about the incident. The Trial Court
failed to consider the evidence of P.W.1 in proper
perspective. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant-State, Smt. Rashmi Patel also
would submits that the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5
and P.W.6 is very clear with regard to the incident is
concerned and also providing treatment to the deceased.
The Trial Court given undue importance to the minor
contradictions and fails to consider the evidence that
P.W.1 when he received the information, immediately
went to spot. The Doctor evidence -P.W.5 is very clear
that he has treated the injured at 10:00 p.m., and injured
died at 11:40 p.m., and P.W.2 is the nurse who was in the
ward witnessed the incident and P.W.4 also supported the
case of prosecution who was working as a group 'D'
employee in the Wenlock hospital and he is an eye
witness. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
Ex.P.10 wound certificate of P.W.1 which clearly discloses
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
that assailant name is mentioned at 10:00 p.m., on
06.08.2013 when the P.W.1 was taken treatment in the
hospital and hence, it requires interference of this Court.
7. Per contra the counsel appearing for the
respondent/accused i.e., amicus curiae who is appointed
by this Court to assist the Court would vehemently
contend that even though when a cognizable offence of
assault and death was taken place at 11:40 itself, no
complaint was given on that day and complaint was given
on the next day at 12:30 noon on 07.08.2013. The
counsel brought to notice of this Court that in the
complaint, not stated about genesis of the incident and for
what purpose the incident was taken place between the
deceased and accused. The counsel would submits that
P.W.1 only makes his improvement in the oral evidence
before the Court and complaint Ex.P.1 doesn't disclose
anything about how an incident was taken place. The fact
that P.W.1 came to the spot on receiving the information
from the staff of the Wenlock hospital and he was also
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
aware of the same for what reason incident was taken
place and it is a case of allegation of deceased defecated
in the bed of the hospital. The counsel would vehemently
contend that explanation was given by the accused in the
statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and there
was a delay in giving the intimation also, though P.W.5
says that intimation was given, nothing is placed on record
for having given the intimation of injury as well as death.
The counsel would submit that Trial Court while
considering the material available on record, rightly comes
to the conclusion that prosecution case and theory is not
established and detailed reasons are given while
discussing the same and hence, no case is made out.
8. Having heard the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for appellant/State and
also the learned counsel for the respondent/accused -
Amicus curie and also considering the evidence available
before the Court that is evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.14, the
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
point that would arise for the consideration of this Court
are:
i) Whether the Trial Court committed an
error in acquitting the accused for the
charges levelled against him and
whether it requires interference of this
Court?
ii) What order?
9. Having re-assessed both oral and documentary
evidence, we have given anxious consideration and
appreciation to the evidence of the prosecution. Having
perused the material available on record, law was set in
motion based on the complaint given by P.W.1 and
complaint was given on the next day of incident at 12:30
p.m., on 07.08.2013 and timings of the complaint is also
mentioned in the complaint - Ex.P.1 and case was
registered for the offence punishable under Section 302
and 323 of IPC and having perused the complaint
averment, it is stated that he heard the scuffle sound in
special ward No.21-24D and the same came to his
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
knowledge through hospital staff and immediately, he
rushed to the spot and found that accused was beating the
victim and injured was escaped from the clutches of the
accused and he ran away and accused chased him and
assaulted with his hands and he fell down and accused
kicked him on his chest 2 to 3 times and he tried to pacify
him and he was also assaulted and with the help of other
staff he was sent to the particular ward and he took
treatment in the hospital and came to know that victim
was passed away at 11:30 p.m., and also given the reason
for cause of death. In the cross examination, question was
put to the P.W.1 and he categorically says that he did not
mention that victim escaped from the clutches of the
accused and he ran away towards the ground floor and
same is marked as Ex.D.1 and hence, it is clear that victim
did not escape from the clutches of the accused and ran
towards the ground floor and there is an inordinate delay
in lodging the complaint and complaint was lodged on next
day at 12:30 noon. But, P.W.4 who is the peon of the very
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
same hospital and in his evidence, he says that accused
was taking treatment and inflicted injuries with his hands,
at that time, security person and also the P.W.2 went to
pacify the galata and accused assaulted P.W.1. During the
cross-examination, this witness also admits that he was
subjected to surgery on the very same day and he was in
ward No.24, but he also admits that person who came
along with P.W.1 held the accused, but people who have
gathered did not catch him. However, categorically admits
that there is a outpost police station in the hospital itself
and also categorically admits that outpost police came to
ward at 9:30 p.m., and incident was taken place at 9:00
p.m., and duty Doctor admits that ward supervisor came
and police who came to the spot enquired P.W.1 and
P.W.2, but though admits that the accused was not in a
position to move and the same was admitted, but the fact
is that police came to the spot at around 9:30 p.m., in the
night itself. It is not in dispute that victim passed away on
11:40 p.m., in the night itself and outpost police have not
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
taken any action immediately when the cognizable offence
was taken place in the hospital itself. Apart from that
complaint was given at 12:.30 noon on the next day
wherein an accusation is made against the accused.
10. It is also important to note that on perusal of
Ex.P.1- complaint, for what reason the assault was made
by the accused is not stated as pointed out by the counsel
appearing for the respondent/amicus curiae and the same
is also discussed by the Trial Court. Having considered the
evidence of P.W.4, it is very clear that P.W.1 and P.W.2
came and enquired at the spot and P.W.1 was aware of
the genesis of the assault, but not mentioned the same in
the complaint which was given on the next day at 12:30
noon. It is also important to note that there was a delay in
lodging the complaint and it appears after thought
complaint was given on the next day at 12:30 noon on
07.08.2013. It is important to note that there is an
improvement in the evidence of P.W.1. Having perused the
evidence of P.W.1, though he says that he witnessed the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
incident of assault made by the accused on the victim and
he also sustained injuries and with regard to the
sustaining of injury, document of Ex.P.10 - wound
certificate is produced and no doubt the name of the
assailant is mentioned in the wound certificate and except
wound certificate, no medical records are placed before
the Court and it has to be noted that treatment was given
in the very same hospital and Court has to take note of
the said fact into consideration.
11. It is important to note that in the cross
examination of P.W.1 categorically says that deceased
passed the motion in the bed No.2 and even pointed out
and shown the bed to the police and police have not seized
the same and categorically admitted by P.W.1 that only
inpatient will be provided with bed, but P.W.1 says that it
was vacant and hence, he was sleeping and also
categorically admits that they used to give pass and only
after checking the pass, they will allow the person to enter
inside the ward, but he claims that injured was not a
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
patient and also he says that there was no pass for special
ward, but other staff of the hospital also noticed
defecating of the injured on the bed in the hospital and he
came to know about the incident through 'D' group
employee i.e., Smt. Saraswathi and he was at that time in
ward No.21 and when he came to know about the
incident, he was in ward No.16, then he rushed to the spot
and also admits that Superintendent and Doctors are there
in the hospital, but both of them have not visited the spot
when he went to the spot, but he denies the very surgery
was made to the accused on the particular date and also
he categorically admits that he did not try to catch hold
the victim. Having considered the Ex.D.1 which was
confronted to the P.W.1 and it appears to be the very
presence is disputed and also the Court has to take note of
the document Ex.P.10 that no doubt that he had sustained
the injuries, but document was came into existence in the
very same hospital.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
12. It is also important to note that on verifying a
bag of victim, kanthappa, he was an outpatient earlier and
earlier he took the treatment as an outpatient and hence,
he came to know about the name of the victim. This Court
also taken note of evidence of P.W.2 who is a staff nurse.
She also says that accused took the treatment and he was
subjected to surgery of circumcision and assault made by
the accused and hence, the victim ran towards outside and
near the steps, accused was stamping him and thereafter
dragged him on the steps and also accused assaulted
P.W.1 on his cheek. But, in the cross-examination of
P.W.2, she says that the victim has not defecated on the
bed and he was not in the bed and also admits that
accused was subjected to surgery on the very same day.
This witness also admits that there is a police outpost in
the hospital itself and even aware of the phone number,
but even informed the superintendent about this incident
and they informed the police, but police came to the spot
after one hour, but cannot say at what time
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
superintendent informed the police about the incident and
also categorically admits that other attendants of the
inpatient were also there at the spot and they did not
make any attempt to confine the accused in the ward, but
only when suggestion was made that while running from
the place, victim fell down and the same was denied, but
says when the accused held him, he fell down. The
suggestion was made that victim was not the attendant of
the accused and the same was denied. It is admitted that
if an inpatient was there and the same will be recorded in
the hospital records and also he did not see how the victim
fell down. It is suggested that accused not inflicted any
injury and also not stamped and the same was denied.
13. The other witness is P.W.5 who is the treated
Doctor to the injured and found the crushed injury on the
right side of chest which extends to 12 x 10 cms, on the
waist there was an incised injury to an extent of 6 x 3 cm
and also upper side on the right thigh incised injuries are
found to an extent of 5 x 2 cm and deposed that he was
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
serious and he passed away at 11:40 pm., and this type of
injury could be caused if assaulted with hands and if he is
dragged on the steps, but not given any reason of if such
injuries could be caused if he was stamped. But, in the
cross-examination, this witness also categorically admits
that in the Wenlock hospital there is a police outpost. He
categorically admits that in the wound certificate, he did
not mention that he was inflicted injury with hands and
also kicked him and witness categorically admits that if
any person fell down on the steps, these type of injuries
could be caused. Having considered the nature of evidence
given by P.W.5, it is very clear that these type of injuries
could be caused if any person falls on the steps facing
towards the steps, this type of injury could be caused.
Apart from that in the wound certificate not mentioned
that these types of injuries could be caused if fisted with
hands and also kicked him. But, in chief evidence, not
stated with regard to if kicked him those type of injuries
could be caused. Apart from that Court has to take note of
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
in the PM report - Ex.P.18, there were several injuries are
mentioned, particularly external injuries over the body and
fracture of number of ribs that is multiple bilateral fracture
of the ribs can be sustained when the deceased has been
assaulted forcefully by stamping over the chest or when
the deceased has been forcibly dragged down the stairs by
the accused and this opinion given by the Doctor is
marked as Ex.P.20, further opinion was taken and cause of
death as per Ex.P.18, died due to bilateral Hemothorax
due to multiple fractures of ribs on either side secondary
to blunt force trauma to the chest. But, he categorically
says that twice or thrice only kicked, but having
considered the nature of injuries of multiple fractures of
ribs, there is no proper evidence before the Trial Court to
cause of multiple fracture of ribs.
14. The Doctor who conducted the post mortem who
is P.W.14 says he conducted the post mortem from 5:00
p.m., to 6:30 p.m., on 13.08.2013 and found injuries in
the THORAX that is walls, ribs and cartilage: Traverse
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
fracture of body of sternum corresponding to 5th - 6th
Intercostal space associated with retrosternal contusions.
Fracture of right 3rd to 9th ribs along midclavicular and
anterior axillary plane. Fracture of left 2nd to 4th and 7th to
9th ribs along anterior axillary plane associated with diffuse
intercostal muscle contusion. When the eyewitness speaks
about fisted with hands and kicked him and no specific
evidence with regard to the causing of these multiple
fractures of right 3rd to 9th ribs when 2 to 3 times kicked
him and no such evidence before the Court particularly
causing of such nature of injuries.
15. The other witnesses are police witnesses and
P.W.3 who has turned hostile. Having perused the material
available on record, only hospital employees i.e., security
guard, nurse and D-group before the Court deposes that
they have witnessed the incident. Having taken note of
there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, it
is clear that law was set in motion after thought. The
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.4 and P.W.5, it is
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
very clear that when the incident was taken place and the
same was come to the notice of the outpost police and
police came within half an hour and incident was taken
place at 9:00 p.m., and police came to the place of
incident at 9:30 p.m., as per the evidence of P.W.4 and so
also P.W.2 says that within one hour of incident, police
came to the spot, but complaint was lodged on the next
day at 12:30 noon as per Ex.P.1 that too at the instance of
P.W.1. But while assaulting the victim, P.W.1 was not
present according to his own admissions that he was in
ward No.21 and also ward No.16, but this incident was
taken place in between a special ward of 24D and though
he says that injured escaped from the clutches of the
accused, but when the document of Ex.D.1 was
confronted, he categorically admits that he has not given
the statement as per Ex.D.1 and hence, the very evidence
of P.W.1 cannot be accepted. He came to the spot only
after receipt of information. Hence, he was very much
present cannot be accepted, but the fact is that P.W.2 and
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
P.W.4 claims that they were at the spot and witnessed the
same, but having considering the inconsistent evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.4 that the victim was not an inpatient and
also categorically admitted that he was defecated on bed,
but no provision was made to allow any outpatient to
come and stay, even sleep on the bed and apart from that
prosecution has not collected any material before the
Court that deceased was an attendant of the accused.
Even if he is an attendant, the details will be there and
even police have not collected any material as he was
attendant. But, statement recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C of the accused is very clear that when he went out,
at that time, he met the victim, but victim came inside.
The admission on the part of P.W.2 is also very clear that
other attendant of the inpatient were also present, but
they have not been examined before the Court and P.W.3
was examined, but he turned hostile. Even though other
witnesses have been cited and not examined and only
interested witnesses have been examined before the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
Court, the Trial Court taken note of all these factors into
consideration, particularly in paragraph number 29, taken
note of 313 statement of the accused which was given in
his explanation and so also considering the evidence of the
witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they have categorically
admits that bed of the hospital will be given only for
patients and not for others. However, P.W.1 and P.W.2
says that deceased defecated on the bed and other
witnesses also re-iterates the same and no explanation as
how the victim used the bed prescribed for the inpatients
in the hospital which also leads to the suspicion regarding
the case of the prosecution. The P.W.1 also admits in the
cross-examination with regard to the same, but not seized
the bed which was defecated according to the witness of
prosecution. The Trial Court also taken note of delay in
lodging the complaint and P.W.1 in his complaint did not
mention anything regarding the defecation made by victim
in the said complaint and no doubt the complaint should
not disclose everything, but the fact that witnesses
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
categorically deposes that they have stated the genesis of
the assault to the P.W.1 and he was having the knowledge
about the same, but not stated anything in the complaint.
The Trial Court also having taken note of admissions on
the part of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 and
deceased was not his attender and he was not an inpatient
in the hospital. The hospital authorities abused and
assaulted the victim for having defecated in the ward and
also specific defence was also taken that while moving
towards the steps, he fell down and sustained the injuries
and in order to overcome their fault and to avoid
themselves from their severe consequences that may be
caused due to the incident, an observation is made that
false complaint was given on the next day and also the
statement of 313 of Cr.P.C is in the same manner which
corroborates with his defence.
16. 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
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
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. Even P.W.5
who treated the deceased at casualty and issued wound
certificate of the deceased as per Ex.P.9 also opined that if
a person fell down on staircase forcefully while facing
down while running on the stairs may suffer injuries
referred to in Ex.P.9-wound certificate. This Court also,
while considering the evidence of P.W.5, taken note of in
the wound certificate, not stated the fisting and also
kicking the victim by the accused and also taking into note
of medical evidence as well as delay and also the evidence
of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 who are the witnesses of the
very same hospital wherein incident was taken place and
no other independent witnesses were examined and
nothing is placed on record and hence, Trial Court rightly
comes to the conclusion that not a case for convicting the
accused in view of evidence of prosecution witnesses is not
consistent.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
17. 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 and 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 in Ex.P.1 not stated genesis of
the assault 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
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
given in 313 statement and Trial Court also considered all
the material available on record.
18. This Court noticed that the District Surgeon and
Superintendent of Zilla Wenlock hospital in his evidence
says that he sought the information from the Doctor in
terms of Ex.P.14 which discloses that this letter was sent
on 28.08.2013, but in the cross-examination, categorically
admits that there is a police outpost in the hospital and if
any incident takes place in the hospital, they used to give
information immediately to the police outpost in the
hospital and P.W.5 who was working in the hospital gave
the information, but no such intimation given to the
Wenlock hospital and not produced any document. But
P.W.11 categorically admits that he came to know about
the incident through phone, but says immediately after
receipt of an information, he went to the hospital, but
police did not enquire him, but says that P.W.5 was
incharge and not given the complaint and this answer
given by P.W.11 and it is nothing but an escapism and
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
pointing out the role of P.W.5 and P.W.5 is only a Doctor
on night duty, but this P.W.11 has not even instructed
P.W.5 to lodge the complaint and even do not remember
whether police have enquired her or not and 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 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 that every person aware of
commission of or of the intention of any other person to
commit any offence punishable under any of the
circumstances as narrated in Section 39 of Cr.P.C including
the offences under Section 302, 303 and 304 of IPC as
under Section 39(v), no such intimation was given even
asked the P.W.5 to lodge the complaint and there is a
clear lapses on the part of P.W.11 being the District
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
Surgeon and Superintendent and Section 176 of IPC is
also very clear that omission to give notice or information
to public servant by person legally bound to give it as
contemplated in the very proviso of Section 176 is very
clear, it is nothing but an omission on the part of the
Superintendent of the hospital being a public servant and
also legal duty to intimate the same when the cognizable
offence was taken place, but did not intimate the same
and there is no such intimation given as per the records
except the complaint got lodged through P.W.1 that too a
security guard on the next day at 12:30 p.m., The
provision of Section 202 of IPC is also very clear that
intentional omission to give information of offence by
person bound to inform is also clear that intentionally omit
to give any information is nothing but an offence and when
such material is found, it is appropriate to initiate the
proceedings against P.W.11 who was working as District
Surgeon and Superintendent of Wenlock Hospital at the
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
time of the incident and there is clear lapses on the part of
P.W.11.
19. It is also unfortunate that Police Circle Inspector
who has been examined before the Court as P.W.12 also,
deposes before the Court that on 07.08.2013, he came to
know about the incident when the complaint was lodged
by P.W.1 at 12:30 p.m., and thereafter case was
registered and then he went to the hospital i.e., special
ward and conducted the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.2 and
Ex.P.3 and also other evidence given with regard to the
conducting of the investigation. But in the cross
examination P.W.12, he categorically admits that he has
received the death intimation as per Ex.P.16, but he did
not go to the hospital immediately and information was
received from the station and even he did not send anyone
to the hospital and categorically admits that there is a
police outpost in the Wenlock hospital and people of
Wenlock hospital will inform to police outpost if any
incident occurred, but do not know whether such
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
information was received and also did not enquire the
Superintendent of Police during the course of investigation
and also not obtained any complaint from the duty Doctor
and this admission on the part of P.W.12 is very clear that
inspite of information 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. When cognizable offence was taken place
and also the evidence is very clear that P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.4 and P.W.5 categorically says that when the outpost
police rushed to the spot at 9:30 p.m., itself and when the
death was taken place in the night itself at 11:40 p.m.,
that too when the cognizable offence was taken place,
either the outpost of Wenlock Hospital shall taken any
action or the P.W.12 has to take the action, but none of
them have taken any action with regard to the cognizable
offence immediately, but they have waited till receipt of
written complaint by P.W.1 on the next day at 12:30 noon
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
and hence, there is a dereliction of duty on the part of
P.W.12 and hence, the concerned Superintendent of Police
of Dakshina Kannada is directed to initiate the proceedings
against P.W.12-CPI on the lapses on the part of P.W.12 in
not taking any action immediately when the cognizable
offence was taken place within his jurisdiction and even
not taking any action against the Wenlock outpost police
who came to know about the incident at 9:30 p.m., on
06.08.2013 itself and also having noticed the death was
occurred at 11:40 p.m., in the night itself and hence, it is
appropriate issue directions in the matter.
20. It appears to be deceased is an unknown person
and nobody claimed his body and hence, both of these
Medical officer as well as the CPI omits to discharge their
duties being a public servants who are responsible even if
orphan or unknown died and to protect the rights of each
of the citizens of this country and hence, we answer the
point accordingly.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
21. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal appeal is dismissed.
ii) If any bail bond is executed and the same
stands cancelled.
iii) The Registry is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.10,000/- to Amicus curiae for the able
assistance provided by the Amicus curiae.
iv) The Competent Authority that is Principal
Secretary to the Health and Family Welfare
Department and also the Home Secretary are
directed to initiate the appropriate
proceedings against both P.W.11-District
Surgeon and Superintendent of Wenlock
Hospital and P.W.12- Police Circle Inspector
who is the investigating officer regarding
their lapses as observed and submit the
report to this Court within three months for
having initiated the action against respective
officers who are bound to intimate to the
concerned.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9930-DB
HC-KAR
v) List this matter on 05.06.2026 to consider
the report to be filed by the Home Secretary
as well as Principal Secretary of Health and
Family Welfare Department.
vi) The Registry is directed to communicate this
order to both of them forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK, RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
