1998 INSC 0516
                                                Rakesh Ranjan Gupta

                                                           Vs

                                             State of U.P. and Another

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 703 of 1998

                               (CJI M. M. Punchi, K. T. Thomas, S. R. Babu JJ)

                                                      24.07.1998

                                                        ORDER

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 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 IPC. 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 nobody's 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 IPC. 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.