When it is a case of medical negligence, it need not be because of mens rea as intent: Supreme Court

By - Shriya Singh*

Supreme court in a recent judgment, held that in case of medical negligence, mens rea is inessential. The bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that “when it is a case of medical negligence, it need not be because of mens rea as intent. Sans mens rea in the above sense also it would still constitute offence of medical negligence.”.

The appellant had filed a case against the private respondent before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patna, alleging offense punishable under Sections 304, 316/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Also Read - Explanation 3C to Section 43B(d) of Income Tax Act is clarificatory and does not purport to add a new condition retrospectively: Supreme Court

The Trial Court vide order dated 24.12.16 issued summons to the respondents in connection with the specified offense after hearing the testimony of three witnesses presented by the complainant/appellant and other materials on record. As a result, the respondents challenged the order in the Patna High Court which rejected it because there was no evidence of mens rea, or malicious or evil intent.

The view of the Supreme Court regarding the opinion of the High Court was that the High Court “completely glossed over the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court…but was impressed by the fact that there was no evidence regarding mens rea, to show malicious or bad intent. This view taken by the High Court is erroneous.”

Also Read - Allahabad High Court dismisses PIL seeking framing of policy for home delivery of liquor

Further, the Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court did not insist on requiring the complainant to provide medical evidence or a medical examination to support his argument set out in the complaint as stated in the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr. Therefore, the bench held that the appropriate course is to set aside both the orders of the Trial Court and High Court and refer the parties back to the Trial Court for further consideration of the matter.

“We make it clear that the Trial Court may have to call upon the complainant to first examine the professional Doctor as a witness in support of the case made out in the complaint and then proceed to consider the matter afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law”, the bench observed.

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER.

*Shriya Singh is a 1^st year student pursuing B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) from National Law University, Delhi.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog