Emotional Autopsy: Kolkata Court asks MCI, State Medical Council to review doctors findings
Advertisement
Kolkata: In a one of its kind direction, a city court recently asked the copies of the autopsy report of a budding Indian Airforce Officer (IAF) to be given to the Medical Council of India (MCI) and West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) for review. The IAF died after a car plunged him during his parade rehearsal in January 2016.
This comes after the court found that an autopsy report given by the doctor concerned too emotional and noted that the doctors had gone beyond professional ethics to make certain comments that do not comprise a post mortem. The judge further added that the doctor was influenced by emotions in his report to establish the murder charge against the accused and not from actual findings.
A detective department sleuth explained that the doctor in question had carried out several crucial post-mortems in the past but this was the first time that he has been pulled up. Senior lawyers and advocates couldn't recall another case where copies of judgment have been sent to the MCI.
The case concerns Corporal Abhimanyu Gaud, 21, a part of an Air Force contingent who was a participant in the morning rehearsals on January 13 2016. During the rehearsals in Kidderpore Road near the Army's Eastern Command headquarters at Fort William in the city, an Audi Q7 SUV smashed two barricades and crashed Gaud to death.
The vehicle was driven by Sambia Sohrab. A case against him was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Read Also: All Medical College Inspections would be Videographed: MCI Board of Governors
The TOI reported that he was booked under Article 302 (Murder), Article 307 (Attempt to murder), Article 304 (II), Article 427, article 201, Article 115/194. He was convicted under Article 427, and 304 (death by negligence).
Additional district and sessions judge Moumita Bhattacharya found Sohrab guilty of causing death by rash and negligent act, which attracts a maximum of two-year imprisonment. He was found guilty of causing damage to government property, which also attracts a maximum jail term of two years.
Sohrab was arrested on January 16, 2016 and has been in custody since then. He has already undergone the maximum punishment for the said offences reports TOI.
The judge directed Sambia to pay a compensation of Rs. one lakh to the deceased family and also slapped a fine of Rs. 10,000 on him, which his lawyer informed, would be deposited with the court treasury during the day.
He was charged by the investigators with killing Gaud and attempting to kill Captain Umesh Kumar, who was injured in the incident.
However, city court acquitted him of both the charges, observing that the prosecution could not prove the allegations. The court criticized the doctors for going beyond the professional ethics to make certain comments that do not comprise a post mortem. The judge further added that the doctor was influenced by emotions in his report to establish the murder charge against the accused and not from actual findings.
The observations made in the report prompted the judge to ask for a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Medical Council of India and the West Bengal Medical Council.
Additional district and sessions judge Moumita Bhattacharya further directed that a copy of the autopsy report will be submitted to the police commissioner.
"I want these copies to be served to the MCI so that they can go through some of the observations and comments made in the report," Bhattacharya added.
However, the defense counsel stated that while the initial autopsy report had not come to any conclusion on the cause of death, the second report that came a month later had highlighted how corporal Gaud had tried to raise his hand and stop the Audi from crushing him and that Sambia - who was allegedly driving the vehicle - had tried to flee the spot.
The defense counsel informed TOI, "During cross-examination, we had questioned these conclusions made in the autopsy report."
This comes after the court found that an autopsy report given by the doctor concerned too emotional and noted that the doctors had gone beyond professional ethics to make certain comments that do not comprise a post mortem. The judge further added that the doctor was influenced by emotions in his report to establish the murder charge against the accused and not from actual findings.
A detective department sleuth explained that the doctor in question had carried out several crucial post-mortems in the past but this was the first time that he has been pulled up. Senior lawyers and advocates couldn't recall another case where copies of judgment have been sent to the MCI.
The case concerns Corporal Abhimanyu Gaud, 21, a part of an Air Force contingent who was a participant in the morning rehearsals on January 13 2016. During the rehearsals in Kidderpore Road near the Army's Eastern Command headquarters at Fort William in the city, an Audi Q7 SUV smashed two barricades and crashed Gaud to death.
The vehicle was driven by Sambia Sohrab. A case against him was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Read Also: All Medical College Inspections would be Videographed: MCI Board of Governors
The TOI reported that he was booked under Article 302 (Murder), Article 307 (Attempt to murder), Article 304 (II), Article 427, article 201, Article 115/194. He was convicted under Article 427, and 304 (death by negligence).
Additional district and sessions judge Moumita Bhattacharya found Sohrab guilty of causing death by rash and negligent act, which attracts a maximum of two-year imprisonment. He was found guilty of causing damage to government property, which also attracts a maximum jail term of two years.
Sohrab was arrested on January 16, 2016 and has been in custody since then. He has already undergone the maximum punishment for the said offences reports TOI.
The judge directed Sambia to pay a compensation of Rs. one lakh to the deceased family and also slapped a fine of Rs. 10,000 on him, which his lawyer informed, would be deposited with the court treasury during the day.
He was charged by the investigators with killing Gaud and attempting to kill Captain Umesh Kumar, who was injured in the incident.
However, city court acquitted him of both the charges, observing that the prosecution could not prove the allegations. The court criticized the doctors for going beyond the professional ethics to make certain comments that do not comprise a post mortem. The judge further added that the doctor was influenced by emotions in his report to establish the murder charge against the accused and not from actual findings.
The observations made in the report prompted the judge to ask for a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Medical Council of India and the West Bengal Medical Council.
Additional district and sessions judge Moumita Bhattacharya further directed that a copy of the autopsy report will be submitted to the police commissioner.
"I want these copies to be served to the MCI so that they can go through some of the observations and comments made in the report," Bhattacharya added.
However, the defense counsel stated that while the initial autopsy report had not come to any conclusion on the cause of death, the second report that came a month later had highlighted how corporal Gaud had tried to raise his hand and stop the Audi from crushing him and that Sambia - who was allegedly driving the vehicle - had tried to flee the spot.
The defense counsel informed TOI, "During cross-examination, we had questioned these conclusions made in the autopsy report."
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.