"The respondent, being a doctor, was under the
Hippocratic oath (oath stating obligations and proper conduct
of doctors) to attempt to heal a patient. Just as it is the
duty of a lawyer to defend an accused, so it is the duty of a
doctor to heal. Even a dentist can apply stitches in an
"Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the only
offence that can be levelled against the respondent is that
under Section 202 of IPC, that is, of omitting to give
information of the crime to the police and this offence has
also to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Section 202 is a
bailable offence," a bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and
Gyan Sudha Mishra said in a judgement.
The apex court passed the judgement dismissing Kerala
government's appeal challenging the bail granted to Dr Raneef
by the High Court as according to the prosecution he was part
of the conspiracy and moreover, as a dentist, he is not
entitled to apply stitches on one of the assailants.
Raneef, a dentist in Ernakulam district, is accused in
crime no 704 of 2010 of Muvattupuzha Police Station for
offences under various provisions of the IPC, the Explosive
Substances Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
in the gruesome palm-chopping case.
On July 4, 2010 at about 8.00 am seven assailants
assaulted Prof TJ Jacob of Newman College, Thodupuzha, and
chopped off his right palm for setting a question paper in the
internal examination of B.Com which allegedly was blasphemous.
Raneef is said to have treated one of the injured
assailants with stitches on the back which he suffered when
Jacob's son had intervened to save his father.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday held
that even a dentist can apply stitches in emergency cases and
upheld the bail granted to Dr Raneef who treated an assailant
of a Kerala's college teacher whose palm was chopped off for
alleged blasphemy against Islam.
First Published: Monday, January 03, 2011, 20:24