Back
Acquittal Stands in Hospital Horror: Karnataka HC Raps Officials for Deadly Delay
In a scathing rebuke to institutional failures, the upheld the acquittal of Prashanth N. in a hospital death case, while ordering disciplinary action against a top doctor and police inspector for ignoring their duty to report a potential murder. The Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh (delivering the oral judgment) and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the state's appeal in , emphasizing amid glaring investigative lapses.
The Trigger: Defecation Turns Deadly?
The incident unfolded on , around 9 p.m. in the special ward (21-24D) of , Mangaluru. Accused Prashanth N., a 39-year-old inpatient undergoing surgery for chronic urinary tract infection (including circumcision that day), allegedly flew into a rage when his attender, Kantappa—referred to as the deceased—passed feces between beds 2 and 3.
Prosecution witnesses, including security guard Subramanya (PW1, also injured), nurse PW2, peon PW4, and doctor PW5, claimed Prashanth assaulted Kantappa with hands and kicks on chest and abdomen. Kantappa fled, was chased, fell near stairs, and suffered severe injuries: crushed chest wound (12x10 cm), incised wounds, and multiple rib fractures. He died at 11:40 p.m. from bilateral hemothorax due to blunt chest trauma. PW1 lodged the FIR next day at 12:30 p.m. under Sections 302 (murder), 325 (grievous hurt), and 341 (wrongful restraint). The trial court acquitted in , citing inconsistencies, delay, and possible stair fall injuries.
State's Pushback vs. Defense Doubts
The state, via , urged reversal, spotlighting PW1's eyewitness account, his wound certificate (Ex.P10 naming Prashanth), nurse and peon's corroboration, and post-mortem (Ex.P18) linking death to blunt trauma. They argued the trial court ignored homicidal death proof and accused's identity.
, for respondent Prashanth, countered fiercely: FIR delayed 13+ hours despite police outpost visit at 9:30 p.m. and death at 11:40 p.m.; no genesis (defecation) in FIR (Ex.P1); PW1's improvements (e.g., chase to ground floor omitted, per Ex.D1); deceased not proven as attender (no records); PW5 opined stair fall could cause wounds (Ex.P9); multiple rib fractures (3rd-9th right, 2nd-4th/7th-9th left) unlikely from 2-3 kicks; unexamined attendants; accused post-surgery immobility.
Cracks in the Prosecution Edifice
The High Court meticulously re-appraised evidence, affirming trial court's logic. Key flaws: PW1 arrived post-information (from wards 16/21), not witnessing initial assault; inconsistent escape narratives; no seizure of defecated bed despite claims; hospital beds for inpatients only, deceased an outpatient with no attender record. Medical opinion allowed stair-fall causation, unaddressed by eyewitnesses on fracture mechanics. Police outpost ignored ; no immediate or intimation despite mandating medical/institutional reporting.
As news reports noted, the bench concurred rib fractures suggested
"hard fall from stairs rather than a few kicks,"
aligning with trial findings on accused's surgery limiting mobility.
Key Observations
"Having re-assessed the material available on record... goes in favour of the accused... Trial Court... rightly comes to the conclusion that prosecution has not made out any case."
"It is also important to note that when the victim died at 11:40 p.m., no was made and no intimation was given either to the outpost police or to the jurisdictional police and after thought only after lapse of almost 13 hours, the complaint was lodged."
"[ ]... it is a legal duty (of a medical practitioner) to inform... ... intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform is also clear."
"There is a on the part of P.W.12... concerned is directed to initiate the proceedings against P.W.12-CPI."
Justice Served, Accountability Demanded
The appeal stands dismissed; acquittal upheld. But the court didn't stop there, invoking public duty: and must initiate proceedings against PW11 (District Surgeon/Superintendent) and PW12 (Circle Inspector) for omissions under 39, 176/202. Reports due by .
This ruling reinforces benefit-of-doubt thresholds in homicide appeals, while spotlighting institutional accountability—even for "unknown" victims. Hospitals and police now face stricter scrutiny on reporting, potentially curbing future delays in vulnerable settings.
