Judgment Intelligence
FIR Quashed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 5 August 2005
- Bench
- Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justices G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code — Sections 34, 88, 92, 93, 304A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482
The appeals were allowed and the prosecution of the appellant under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC was quashed (para 51).
Key holdings
- Negligence must be gross or of a very high degree to be criminal; ‘rash or negligent act’ in Section 304A IPC is read as qualified by the word ‘grossly’ (para 45).
- The Bolam test holds good in India: a professional is judged by the standard of an ordinary competent practitioner, in the light of the knowledge available at the time of the incident (para 45).
- A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not proof of negligence (para 45).
- Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence of the civil law and has, if at all, a limited application in a trial for criminal negligence (paras 26, 45).
- Until rules are framed, a private complaint against a doctor needs another competent doctor's credible opinion, the police must obtain an independent medical opinion, and arrest should not be routine (para 49).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 422
For criminal liability a doctor's negligence must be so reckless or grossly negligent; a lack of due care may found liability in tort only. Its correctness was doubted by the referring Bench; the principles were agreed with and re-affirmed, without opinion on its facts.
- Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582
A professional is judged by the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing that special skill, not the highest expert skill; held to hold good in India.
- Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] A.C. 576
Simple lack of care that founds civil liability is not enough; a very high degree of negligence must be proved for a criminal offence.
View all precedents (13)
- Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30
Approving Andrews: where negligence is an ingredient of an offence it must be culpable or gross, not mere error of judgment; res ipsa loquitur cannot prove that ingredient in a criminal case.
- John Oni Akerele v. The King AIR 1943 PC 72
A doctor is not criminally responsible for a patient's death unless his negligence went beyond a matter of compensation and showed such disregard for life as to be a crime; the negligence must be gross.
- Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra (1965) 2 SCR 622
For Section 304A the death must be the direct result of a rash and negligent act that was the proximate and efficient cause, the causa causans.
- Juggankhan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1965) 1 SCR 14
A doctor who administers a medicine of a particular branch impliedly declares knowledge of it; a Homoeopath who gave poisonous substances without that knowledge acted rashly or negligently.
- Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr. (1969) 1 SCR 206
Stated the duties a doctor owes to the patient in a civil claim under the Fatal Accidents Act; criminal negligence was not in issue.
- Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 651
Medical professionals have no immunity from civil suits for negligence; professionals must have a minimum degree of competence and exercise reasonable care.
- Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 634
Skills differ from doctor to doctor and there may be more than one course of treatment; res ipsa loquitur was applied in that civil case.
- M/s Spring Meadows Hospital and Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 39
In a civil case, an error of judgment is not necessarily negligence; Lord Fraser's statement of when it is was approved.
- R. v. Lawrence [1981] 1 All ER 974 (HL)
Lord Diplock's statement of recklessness as constituting mens rea in criminal law.
- Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority [1985] 1 All ER 635 (HL)
Accepted as settling that it is not enough to show a body of competent professional opinion considering the decision wrong if an equally competent body supports it as reasonable.
