The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Avinash G. Gharote and Sunil B. Shukre quashed criminal proceedings against a junior doctor charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder for alleged negligence that led to the death of four infants at a hospital. (Dr. Bhushan v. State of Maharashtra)
The bench found that no charge of culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as against the junior doctor was disclosed from the facts at hand. The Court drawing on the definition of culpable homicide in Section 299 IPC, underscored that intention or knowledge needed to be present to make an act one of culpable homicide.
The court said, "There must be an act or omission coupled with the intention or knowledge as contemplated in Section 299 of the I.P.C. on the part of the person and if there is no such act or omission, there would be no offence of culpable homicide. If there is no offence of culpable homicide, further questions as to whether it amounts to murder as defined under Section 300 or it does not amount to murder as envisaged in Section 304 of the I.P.C. would not arise."
Facts of the case
The case concerned a junior resident doctor at an Amravati-based Medical College. In 2017, four newborn babies admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of the Department of Paediatrics at the Medical College, Amravati died unfortunately due to administration of the wrong injection by the nursing staff on duty. The nurse on duty at the NICU administered drug "Potassium Chloride" instead of the injection as prescribed.
The Junior Resident Doctor was found to be absent at that crucial time, despite his duty being assigned. He was named in charge-sheet under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC, by Amravati police and was made accused of not taking proper care and the death were attributed to him.
The petitioner doctor approached the High Court challenging the Charge-sheet.
Contention of the parties
The counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Anil Mardikar, argued that charging the petitioner with the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with acting on common intention was not justifiable in light of what transpired. He asserted that the petitioner while admittedly the petitioner was not present at the relevant time, he had not prescribed the injection that was to have been administered or the one that was finally injected. The nurse on duty had admitted her mistake, he submitted additionally.
The Senior Advocate pointing out that the offence punishable under Section 304 required intention/knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, stated that the petitioner did not possess the required intention.
The Senior Advocate said, at the most a departmental inquiry could be launched against him for his absence.
The APP S.M. Ghodeswar submitted that there it was the duty of the petitioner in his role as officer-on-duty at the NICU, to ensure that proper drugs were administered. Contending that the petitioner's actions amounted to criminal negligence, he prayed that the Court would dismiss the petition.
Courts Observation and judgment
The Court after referring the records produced, concluded that the petitioner had no role to play in the entire matter, either of prescribing the drug, storing the same or of administering the drugs.
The Court in reference to the charge of culpable homicide said,
"At the relevant time, the petitioner was not at all present in the NICU and so, there is no question of the petitioner doing any act with the requisite intention or knowledge. There would also not be any question of the petitioner omitting to do any act with such intention or knowledge as is required under Section 299 of the I.P.C…"
While stating that the situation would have been different if it had been demonstrated that the petitioner had deliberately stayed away from the NICU at the relevant time, the Court pointed out that no such material had been brought on record.
The Court specifically took notice of the fact that the hospital did not place on record a Standard Operating Procedure followed when injections were administered to the newborns in the NICU.
Reasoning that this could imply that no SOP was in place, the Court concluded that there was therefore no duty of care cast upon the doctor to be personally present while the injections were being administered.
The Bench held,
It then follows that this is a case wherein apart from absence of any blameworthy act, there being no act whatsoever done by the petitioner, there is also missing the element of culpable omission on the part of the petitioner, there being no duty in him to personally monitor the administration of injection by a trained nurse which absence of duty led to no breach of duty by the petitioner.
In this light, the principles developed in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, viz. (i) duty to take care, (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage were not disclosed in the case, the Court ruled.
The Court holding that continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process, quashed the proceedings.
The Court clarified that its directions were in the context of criminal proceedings only.
"We make it clear here that in recording such a finding, we have only considered the criminal dimension of the case insofar as it relates to the petitioner and we have not dealt with civil dimension of the case involving such issues as of damages, civil liability, departmental action and so on, in any manner."
"..even if everything as mentioned in the charge-sheet was presumed to be true, at the most, may lay a blame of dereliction of duty at his doorstep, for which Departmental action can always be taken by the authorities", the Court said.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
