The appellant herein was admitted in the maternity Signature Not Verifiedward of the Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital and Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date 2019.12.17 163642 IST Reason delivered a baby girl around 1230 in the afternoon on 24th August 2007.
A.No.1268 of 2013 of the baby were closed.
It is the case of the prosecution that Crl.
On 26th August 2007 post mortem was companyducted on the dead body and the doctor opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation.
Further it is also stated that he was number allowed to meet his wife and he was allowed only after post mortem was companyducted on the body of the child on 26th August 2007.
The evidence against the accused was put to her and her statement was recorded under Section 313, Cr.
Thereafter she was found dead by nursing staff of the hospital.
At around 0500 p.m. again when he was called by the nurse and he was informed that child had expired and on questioning, staff have number given any reason for death.
She was tried for the charge under Section 302 IPC by the companyrt of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, New Delhi.
To prove the charge against the appellant, prosecution in all, has examined 23 witnesses.
In her statement, she has number pleaded guilty and claimed trial, as such, she was tried in Sessions Case No.78 of 2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
PW 8 in her cross examination has stated that baby was on oxygen mask in the incubator.
P.C. she has pleaded her innocence and deposed that she has been falsely implicated by the police in companynivance with the hospital authorities, to shift the blame from doctors on duty.
In this case it is clear from the record that the companyviction of the appellant herein is based on circumstantial evidence.
The trial companyrt mainly relied on the evidence of two staff nurses PW 8 and 9, who have deposed that baby girl was placed with the mother at about 0430 p.m. and the child was found dead by 0630 p.m. The husband of the appellant was examined by the prosecution as PW 7.
Further it is submitted that though the companyviction rests on circumstantial evidence, chain is established to prove the guilt of the accused appellant, and there are numbergrounds to interfere with the well companysidered judgment of the trial companyrt, as companyfirmed by the High Court.
Thereafter at around 0630 p.m. during rounds Ward Doctor found baby was sick.
There is numberevidence on record to draw such a companyclusion against the appellant.
As against the companyviction recorded and sentence imposed the appellant carried the matter in appeal to the High Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment, companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
None of the doctors on duty on the date of delivery was examined.
Another staff nurse, by name, Sangeeta Rani was examined as PW 9 who has deposed that on the date of incident she joined duty at 0300 p.m. and new born baby had been kept in the incubator and had been on oxygen mask.
She was number moving and she was number weeping.
In her deposition she has stated that new born was under observation in incubator.
In his deposition he has stated that on 24th August 2007 he had taken his wife, i.e., the appellant herein to Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital, for delivery and on the same day at around 1200 numbern appellant gave birth to a female baby.
A.No.1268 of 2013 as the new born was a baby girl, as such the appellant mother has caused her death by strangulation after baby was handed over to her at 0430 p.m. on the said date.
PW 8, staff nurse was examined.
Having heard learned companynsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned judgments and other material placed on record.
He was called to the labour room and the nurse had shown him the new born baby and at that time eyes Crl.
He has also stated that there was also a red mark on the numbere of the child.
She has deposed that the new born was handed over to the mother at around 0430 p.m. by taking her out of the incubator.
Subhash Reddy, J. This criminal appeal is filed by the sole accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 12th March 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2010 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, by which the appellant herein was companyvicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.
A.No.1268 of 2013 the appellant herein.
On 31st August 2007 a case was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, for causing death of her new born baby.
