Gangrape: Case fixed for Jan 14 for scrutiny of documents

In Delhi For the scrutiny of documents filed with the charge sheet in the case of the December 16 gangrape and murder of a 23-year-old girl, a court has fixed a date which is January 14.

The five accused — bus driver Ram Singh, his brother Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta and Akshay Thakur — were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Namrita Aggarwal, who conducted the proceedings in-camera.

The five accused are at present in judicial custody. The case of the sixth accused – a minor – is being heard by a Juvenile Justice Board.

The victim, a paramedical student, was brutally raped and assaulted in a moving bus here on the night of December 16, 2012 and she died of injuries on December 29 in a Singapore hospital.

The court on January 5 had taken cognisance of the charge sheet against five of the accused yesterday under sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 376 (2)(g) (gangrape), 377 (unnatural offences), 395 (dacoity), 396 (murder in dacoity), 394 (hurting in dacoity), 201 (destruction of evidence), 120-B (conspiracy), 34 (common intention) and 412 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC.

Meanwhile, the court issued notice to the Delhi Police to file its response on an allegation by an advocate that the police and the Safdarjung Hospital were “negligent” in dealing with the case and the victims.

Consumer Court: Death due to doctor’s negligent act is an accident

Doctor’s rash or negligent act resulting in death amounts to an accident apex consumer panel has held while making the victim entitled to the accidental death benefits from his or her insurer.

 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (NCDRC) gave the ruling while ordering the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India to pay the accidental death benefits to the husband of the insured, who had died while being operated upon.

 “The life assured (the insured) died during an operation by the treating doctors. Thus, the injury to the life assured was an accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and therefore, the Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the accidental benefits to the complainant,” the NCDRC said.

 The LIC had denied the accidental benefits to Haryana resident Narender Singh, the husband of the insured, saying his wife’s death during the surgery was not an accident.

 It had also contended that the doctors were not negligent or rash as they had performed the surgery fairly without any ill-intention or mens rea.

 The bench presided by Justice J M Malik rejected the contentions as “devoid of force” and pointed out that “a criminal case under section 304-A (of Indian Penal Code) is pending against the doctors. A criminal case crops up by a negligent and rash act. Mens rea is not required.” It also observed “the negligence and rashness” as well as deficiency of service of the doctors was evident from the fact that no anaesthetist was present during the surgery.

 “Without calling the anaesthetist, the doctors should not have treated the patient at all. This itself speaks deficiency in service on the part of the doctors as well as negligence and rashness,” the NCDRC said