1. Medical practitioner charge-sheeted under Section 304-A IPC following allegations of negligence and delay in treatment leading to a patient's death. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 689
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Punchhi, CJI., K.T.Thomas, S.R.Babu, JJ.
Rakesh Ranjan Gupta
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 703 of 1998
Date of Decision : 7/24/98
Important Points
Criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC requires a prima facie case of rash or negligent acts. Civil negligence or death caused by factors unrelated to the accused's actions does not justify criminal prosecution, and proceedings should be quashed to prevent unnecessary harassment.
Subject
Criminal Law - Medical Negligence
Act Referred
Headnote
Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482, Quashing - Offence U/s 304-A. IPC - Allegation is that accused Doctor not attended the patient immediately. On being insisted, he administered an injunction to the patient and the patient was taken to another hospital where he was pronounced dead - visera examined by chemical examiner showing cause of death as one of consuming poison - Death not on account of any thing which the accused Doctor did to the patient - Delay on the part of Doctor to the attend the patient may at the worst be a case of civil negligence and not one of capable negligence falling: U/s 304-A IPC - Proceeding quashed. (Paras 3 & 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended that the allegations failed to disclose the commission of an offence under Section 304-A IPC. (Para 2 )
3. Delay in treatment constitutes civil negligence rather than culpable negligence; medical evidence proving death by poison negates the causal link between the doctor's acts and death. (Para 3 )
4. Criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC requires a rash or negligent act causing death, which is not established by civil negligence or lack of causation. (Para 3 )
6. Does a delay in attending to a patient by a medical practitioner necessarily attract criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC?
No, a delay in attending to a patient may, at worst, be considered a case of civil negligence and does not necessarily constitute the culpable negligence required for a criminal offence under Section 304-A IPC. (Para 3 )
7. What is the effect of medical evidence proving death by poison on a charge of negligent homicide against a doctor?
If medical evidence, such as a chemical examiner's report, establishes that death was caused by poison and there is no evidence the doctor administered it, the causal link required for Section 304-A IPC is broken. (Para 3 )
8. When is a charge-sheet under Section 304-A IPC liable to be quashed?
A charge-sheet is liable to be quashed when the allegations do not prima facie disclose a rash or negligent act causing death, thereby preventing unnecessary harassment through criminal prosecution. (Para 3 , 4 )
(1) LEAVE granted. Heard both sides.
(2) THE appellant in this case is a medical practitioneR.He stands charge- sheeted for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a complaint made by the second respondent. At the FIR stage, the appellant moved the High court for quashing the FIR on the premise that the offence under Section 304-A has not been disclosed in the allegations. But the High court, instead of quashing the proceedings, permitted the appellant a to raise this question before the trial court. In the meanwhile, the appellant was charge-sheeted. The allegations of the second respondent are that when her husband was in a serious condition, he was taken to the hospital wherein the appellant, the doctor was working as a medical practitioner and that the appellant did not attend to the patient immediately. On being insisted by her, the appellant became angry and there was exchange of words between them. The gravamen of the case is that the appellant administered an injection to the patient and the patient was taken to another hospital where he was pronounced dead.
(3) THE above allegations do not disclose, prima facie, a case of rash or negligent act on the part of the appellant so as to attract the penal provision under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. If there was delay on the part of the doctor to attend on the patient, that may at the worst be a case of civil negligence and not one of culpable negligence falling under the above section. That apart, the cause of death has now been disclosed from the report of the chemical examiner, as one of consuming poison. The viscera examined in the chemical laboratory showed that result. It is nobodys case that the appellant has administered poison to the patient. It is now apparently clear that death was not on account of anything which the appellant did to the patient. It was primarily due to the poison being consumed by the deceased. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that death of the deceased was caused by any act done by the appellant.
(4) THE admitted facts being thus, this is not a case to proceed against the appellant in a criminal court for offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet is liable to be quashed or else the appellant is likely to be subjected to unnecessary harassment for facing criminal prosecution. We quash it without prejudice to the right of the legal representatives of the deceased to resort to any other action permissible under law.
(5) THE appeal is allowed accordingly.
