Kerala PG Medico Suicide Case: HC grants interim relief to Accused Doctor, allows to rejoin MS Orthopaedics course
Kerala High Court
Ernakulam: Granting interim relief to the doctor accused of abetting his former fiance's suicide, the Kerala High Court has allowed him to rejoin his post-graduate studies.
This order was passed by a single-judge bench consisting of Justice Ziyad Rahman AA after considering the 'irreversible damage' caused by preventing the accused doctor from attending classes, Live Law has reported.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported about the death of the 26-year-old young doctor, who was pursuing her postgraduate medical studies at the surgery department of the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College. The PG medico committed suicide by injecting a heavy dose of anaesthesia into her body.
The relatives of the deceased doctor claimed that the medico possibly committed suicide because her marriage was on hold. It was alleged that the former fiance of the PG medico had demanded a huge dowry for the marriage.
The relatives alleged that the groom's family demanded Rs 50 lakhs, 50 sovereigns of gold and a car as dowry. Despite having financial difficulties since their father passed away a few months ago, the doctor's family accepted the request. However, as per the statements of the relatives, the matter became twisted when the groom's family started demanding more money and an expensive car and later backed out from the marriage after the doctor's family cited their inability to provide the dowry.
Based on their statements, the accused, also a postgraduate doctor in the College, was taken into custody from Karunagappally. He was booked under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for Abetment of Suicide and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Earlier the State Health Department had suspended the accused doctor.
Later, while considering his plea, a Single Judge bench of the Kerala High Court granted him interim relief by allowing him to re-join his postgraduate medical course in MS Orthopaedics at the Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Court observed that even though the charges against him were serious, those charges had not been proven yet. "Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is only an accused in a crime, of course, the charges are serious, and that he had obtained admission on merit for the Post Graduate course, keeping him away from studies pending the enquiry or trial would place him in such a situation where the damage would become irreversible in case, the charges are not proved," the Court mentioned in the order.
However, the Interim order dated 13.03.2024 was challenged by the principal of the medical college and the Government authorities, who filed an appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
The counsel for the State, appearing for the appellants, submitted that if sufficient time had been granted to the State authorities to file a counter affidavit with relevant documents and permitted to argue the matter, the grievance raised in this appeal might not have arisen.
Further, it was also brought to the notice of the Court that an Enquiry Committee had been constituted and the Committee had completed its inquiry.
Taking note of this, a Division bench of the HC had set aside the interim relief and directed the authorities to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the doctor within a week.
It mentioned in its order dated March 20, 2024, "The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the original petitioner shall be completed within a period of one week. On completion of the proceedings, the appellants may file an additional counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge, within a period of four days of the decision. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition at the earliest."
Now, as per the latest media report by Live Law, a single-judge bench comprising Justice Ziyad Rahman AA has allowed the accused doctor to re-join his postgraduate medical education and observed, "The damages, if any caused, if the petitioner is prevented from attending the classes would be irreversible once it is found that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, were not legally sustainable. Therefore, I am of the view that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am inclined to grant an interim order to the petitioner, permitting to join classes and at the same time, to ensure that, the punishment imposed against him is implemented in case the same is upheld by the court."
The HC bench has listed the matter for further hearing on 21st May, 2024.
