‘Routine instructions cannot be instigation’: Gujarat High Court quashes FIR in resident doctor’s suicide case

Nine years after a 24-year-old resident doctor died at Surat’s New Civil Hospital, the Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR against two senior doctors accused of abetting his suicide, holding that the investigation material did not establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

Observing that “routine departmental instructions, academic reprimands, or allocation of ward work during an initial orientation period cannot be legally elevated to the status of ‘instigation’ under Section 107 IPC”, the court added that “the inability to cope with a demanding residency programme is deeply tragic”, but the evidence did not establish a deliberate criminal design by the doctors.

Justice P M Raval of the Gujarat HC, in a judgment pronounced on October 29, quashed the 2017 FIR registered at Khatodara police station in Surat and the consequential proceedings, including a case pending before the Additional District Judge, Surat, against the two petitioners.

The court held that the material on record did not establish the direct instigation or intentional aid required to prosecute them for abetment of suicide.

2017 case

The case arose from the death of Dr Dhaval Parmar, a first-year Master of Surgery (MS) resident at New Civil Hospital, on July 4, 2017. His father, Dineshchandra Parmar, had alleged that his son had repeatedly complained of mental and physical harassment by senior residents Dr Milan Pumbhadiya and Dr Naresh Makwana, including caste-based insults, excessive working hours and pressure to purchase equipment required during operations.

According to the prosecution’s case, Dhaval called his father on the morning of his death and said he wanted to leave the surgery course because his seniors behaved arbitrarily and made residents buy operation-related equipment at their own expense, the HC order notes. The court also noted that his father asked Dhaval’s elder brother to meet him at the hospital. When the family reached the campus, Dhaval was missing. He was later found dead after falling from a building, according to the police investigation report.

The doctors approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, which invoked Sections 306, 323 and 114 of the IPC and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Story continues below this ad

They argued that they were second-year residents, not responsible for administrative decisions or duty rosters, and that the allegations of assault and caste-based abuse were not supported by independent evidence.

The complainant and prosecution opposed the petitions, contending that the allegations of “prolonged duty hours, sleep deprivation, verbal abuse and physical harassment” should be examined at trial. They also relied on the deceased’s writings, which referred to continuous duties, pressure and distress.

The High Court examined the diary entry, witness statements, forensic findings and other investigation material. It noted that although the diary referred to pressure, torture and 24-hour duties, it did not name any individual as responsible.

‘Zero incriminating messages’

The court noted the report of the investigating officer that has statements of 12 co-resident doctors, nurses, ward staff and other hospital personnel, who did not independently corroborate the allegations of physical harassment or caste-based insults. The forensic examination report of the Surat FSL of the deceased’s mobile phones also did not reveal incriminating text messages or WhatsApp communications linked to the petitioners.

Story continues below this ad

The order states, “In an era where electronic communication forms the primary digital footprint of human interaction, the complete absence of any hostile, threatening, or abusive content assumes paramount legal significance. The forensic extraction and analysis conducted by RFSL Surat of both mobile devices recovered from the deceased revealed zero incriminating text messages, WhatsApp chats, or media files directed by or associated with the petitioners.”

The court further considered the father’s subsequent statement expressing suspicion that his son might have been killed and thrown from the building. It said the shift in the account weakened the prosecution’s theory of abetment. The allegation that one of the doctors had kicked Dhaval in the private parts was also found to lack independent corroboration, noting that the postmortem report recorded no external injuries to that area.

On the charges under the SC/ST Act, the court observed that the relevant provisions required the alleged caste-based insult to have occurred in a place within public view. It noted that the alleged remarks were said to have been made during departmental interactions or routine ward duties and that no independent witness had corroborated them.

The court clarified that it did not condone ragging and observed, “While this court categorically clarifies that it in no way condones or encourages ragging–which remains an unmitigated social evil that must be dealt with an iron hand under appropriate administrative and legal frameworks – however, every instance of institutional friction, academic intimidation, or unpardonable misconduct does not automatically equate to ‘instigation’ as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.”

Story continues below this ad

On the duration of Dhaval’s residency, the court noted that he had been associated with the institution for 43 days.

“In the case on hand routine departmental instructions, academic reprimands, or allocation of ward work during an initial orientation period cannot be legally elevated to the status of ‘instigation’ under Section 107 IPC,” the court observed.

“While the inability to cope with a demanding residency program is deeply tragic, attributing the tragic outcome to a deliberate criminal design (mens rea) on the part of senior resident doctors– in the absence of any concrete material establishing a direct, positive act intended to compel self-destruction within this brief (43 days) 6-week window– fails the mandatory statutory test under Section 107 of IPC,” the court added.

In its concluding observations, the court said, “While this Court deeply sympathises with the informant’s family for the tragic loss of a young doctor, criminal law requires strict adherence to statutory ingredients. Allowing criminal prosecution to proceed against the petitioners where essential statutory ingredients are absent would constitute a clear abuse of the process of law.”

Story continues below this ad

The court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, bringing the prosecution against the two doctors to a close.