GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 16 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 18:

1. Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

2. A First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Sadar Police Station Goalpara on 08.08.2024 by the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara reporting about death of one Basaton Nessa, wife of Rofiqul Islam, resident of South Darirpara, P.O. and P.S. - Baguan, Goalpara. In the FIR, it was reported that Basaton Nessa died at 03-30 p.m. on 16.07.2024 at FAA Medical College & Hospital, Barpeta as a consequence of Medical Termination of Pregnancy [MTP] by unauthorised personnel on 15.07.2024 at his residence.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Goalpara registered General Diary Entry No. 15 dated 17.08.2024. Finding that the place of occurrence was Baida SHC under Lakhipur Police Station, the Officer In-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Goalpara treated the FIR as Zero FIR and forwarded the same to the Officer In-Charge, Lakhipur Police Station. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Lakhipur Police Station registered the same as Lakhipur Police Station Case no. 221/2024 under Sections 106[1]/125/90 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

4. The petitioner has averred that he is serving as a Medical Officer [Ayurvedic] under the Block PHC, Gojarikandi and his place of work is at Kakripara S/D.

5. One of the contentions raised is that there was no written and verbal complaint from the victim's family or relatives and the information was based on the sole statement of an ASHA worker. It is further contended that the FIR was lodged by the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara after submission of an Enquiry Report dated 06.08.2024 by the Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer [SDMHO], O/o Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara.

6. It has been contended that a medical professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings - [i] either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed,or [ii] he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.The standard to be applied for judging is whether the person charged has been negligent or not would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs. the State of Punjab and another, reported in [2005] 6 SCC 1.

7. A copy of an Enquiry Report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer [SDMHO], O/o Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara is found annexed to the criminal petition as Annexure-2.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x9qj3wyHNYKOj1NTd5LARopLr1gdYMv%2BYGKkHNXDvjt5&caseno=Crl.Pet./999/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010180232025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.