Criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused doctors sought discharge from Sessions Case No. 579 of 2011 related to the death of a minor girl allegedly caused by egg donation procedures at Rotunda Hospital. The Sessions Court rejected their applications for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.. However, upon revision, the High Court found insufficient evidence to establish their involvement in the minor's death due to medical negligence. The court noted that another accused doctor had already been discharged, and the current applicants were entitled to discharge on the grounds of parity.

1. Background:

• The case involves the death of a minor girl who had undergone egg donation procedures at Rotunda Hospital. The victim died on 10.08.2010 after suffering health complications post-procedure.
• During the investigation, it was revealed that the victim had undergone egg donation on three occasions, with her last procedure occurring on 07.08.2010, the day before her death.

2. Accusations:

• The prosecution alleged that the victim, being below 18 years of age, was illegally allowed to undergo the egg donation procedure, which resulted in her death. Postmortem results showed multiple injuries and injection marks on the victim's body.
• The prosecution argued that the applicants, who were either gynecologists or anesthetists, were responsible for performing the procedure despite the victim's underage status.

3. Defense:

• The applicants argued that they were not involved in the last procedure performed on 07.08.2010, and their roles were limited to procedures conducted on 22.10.2009 and 15.02.2010.
• A medical committee from Grant Medical College had given an opinion that this was not a case of medical negligence, and the doctors were not responsible for the victim's admission or her underage status.

4. Court's Findings:

• The court found no evidence of medical negligence or anesthetic complications contributing to the victim's death.
• There was no sufficient ground to hold the applicants responsible for the procedure, as the documentary evidence presented by the hospital indicated the victim’s age as 20 years.
• On the basis of parity with Dr. Kadam, who was discharged for the procedure conducted on 22.10.2009, the court concluded that the applicants should also be discharged.

5. Court's Order:

• The impugned order was set aside, and the applicants were discharged from Sessions Case No. 579 of 2011.
• The court directed the Trial Court to pass a formal order discharging the applicants.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with revisionary powers of the court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding for the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order.
2. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.: Enables a court to discharge an accused if, upon considering the records of the case, it finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.

Ratio:

The court held that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused due to a lack of evidence of medical negligence and the parity with a co-accused who was discharged. The role of the applicants was limited, and no direct evidence linked them to the death caused by the procedure performed on the victim on 07.08.2010.