Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Hariram Yadu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date: 2025.08.07
14:45:59 +0530
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
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