Consultation room of doctor is not public place: HC drops charges against Paediatrician under Section 294 IPC
Ernakulam: Clarifying that consultation room of a doctor in a hpspital is not a 'public place' in terms of Section 294(b) of IPC, the Kerala High Court recently provided relief to a Paediatrician who had been accused of harassing a minor patient's mother.
While the woman alleged that the doctor had uttered obscene words against her and had shown obscene action with his finger, the HC bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held that consultation room of a doctor cannot be termed as a public place or near public place.
"Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the consulting room of the petitioner at the T.M. Hospital, Chavakkad. It can never be termed as a public place or near public place," observed the bench,
Apart from this, the bench also noted that in order to satisfy the definition of obscenity to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers. Referring to the judgment in the case of Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala in this regard, the bench further observed, "There is no case for the prosecution that the words allegedly uttered by the petitioner aroused sexually impure thoughts in the minds of the hearers. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the basic ingredients of Section 294(b) of IPC are not attracted."
The matter goes back to 2017 when the concerned minor child's circumcision had been done at T.M. Hospital. Since the child developed bleeding from his penis, the complainant had brought her child to the concerned paediatrician for treatment. It was alleged by the child's mother, the complainant that at his consultation room and during examination, when the child passed urine, the doctor allegedly got angry and showered abusive words against her which allegedly outraged her modesty.
On the basis of the complaint received from the complainant, the police conducted an investigation and booked the doctor under Section 294(b) and 354 A of IPC.
After the matter reached the High Court, the counsel for the doctor argued that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are believed in its entirety, no offence under Section 294(b) and 354 A of IPC are attracted.
The bench perused the FIS and noted that in order to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the following two ingredients are to be satisfied. (i) The offender has sung, recited or uttered any obscene song or word in or near any public place and (ii) has so caused annoyance to others.
"If the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not in or near any public place or that it caused no annoyance to others, no offence is committed," clarified the bench.
Taking note of the fact that the place of occurrence was the consulting room of the petitioner at the T.M. Hospital, Chavakkad, the bench observed, "It can never be termed as a public place or near public place."
Dismissing the charges against the doctor under Section 294(b) of IPC, the bench also clarified that Section 354A of IPC deals with sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.
Exonerating the doctor from all the charges, the bench further noted, "A reading of the FIS would show that none of the above ingredients are attracted. Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.2255/2017 on the file of the court below is hereby quashed."
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/kerala-high-court-194914.pdf
