Issue 3
Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant under section 304 A read with
section 34 of the Indian penal code are legally sustainable?
It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the criminal proceedings
initiated against the appellant under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code are not legally sustainable. Criminal liability under Section 304A arises only when the
negligence is gross and directly causes death, and Section 34 requires proof of common
intention among the accused. In the absence of gross negligence and common intention, the
proceedings against the appellant are liable to be quashed.
Sub-Issues
1. Negligence of the appellant doctor in providing medical treatment
It was respectfully submitted that the appellant had exercised reasonable care and skill
expected from a competent medical professional while treating the patient. The mere fact
that the treatment did not result in recovery or that the patient died does not automatically
establish negligence. A doctor cannot assure a successful outcome in every case because
medical science involves uncertainty. If the doctor follows a practice accepted by a
responsible body of medical professionals, he cannot be considered negligent.
This principle is supported by the decision in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management
Committee, where it was held that a doctor is not negligent if he has acted in accordance
with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals. Similarly,
in Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, the Supreme Court of India
observed that a doctor owes a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake a case, in
deciding the treatment to be given, and in administering that treatment.
2. Determination of criminal negligence under Section 304A IPC
It was respectfully submitted that criminal negligence requires a much higher degree of
negligence than civil negligence. For criminal liability under Section 304A IPC, the
negligence must be gross and must demonstrate a reckless disregard for the life and safety
of the patient. Ordinary negligence or a simple mistake may result in civil liability but not
criminal prosecution.
In Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court of India held that
for criminal liability to arise, the negligence must be gross or of a very high degree. Similarly,
in R v. Adomako, the Court explained that criminal negligence must be so serious that it
amounts to gross negligence endangering human life.
3. Distinction between civil negligence and criminal negligence
It was further submitted that civil negligence and criminal negligence are different in nature.
Civil negligence arises when there is a breach of duty causing damage to another person,
whereas criminal negligence requires a much higher degree of negligence that endangers
human life or safety.
In Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court of India held that
for criminal liability to arise, the negligence must be gross or of a very high degree. The
Court observed that ordinary negligence may give rise to civil liability but not criminal
prosecution.
A similar principle was reiterated in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research
Centre, where the Court emphasized that medical professionals should not be unnecessarily
subjected to criminal liability unless there is clear evidence of gross negligence.
4. Lack of common intention under Section 34 IPC
It is respectfully submitted that the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
requires proof of a common intention shared by the accused persons to commit the alleged
act. In the absence of prior meeting of minds or a common design, Section 34 IPC cannot be
invoked.
In Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, the Supreme Court of India held that common
intention implies a pre-arranged plan and prior meeting of minds among the accused
persons.
Similarly, in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, it was held that the existence of common intention
must be proved by clear evidence and cannot be presumed merely because several persons
were involved in the act.
5. Death caused due to terminal illness and not due to negligence
It is respectfully submitted that the death of the patient occurred due to the terminal illness
from which the patient was already suffering and not because of any negligent act of the
appellant. When a patient is in a critical stage of illness, death may occur despite proper
medical care. Therefore, the mere occurrence of death does not establish negligence.
In Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, the Supreme Court of
India observed that a doctor cannot be held liable merely because the treatment was
unsuccessful or the patient did not survive.
Therefore, when death is caused due to the natural progression of a terminal illness, criminal
liability under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be imposed.
In light of the above submissions, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish
gross negligence on the part of the appellant or the existence of common intention among
the accused persons. Since the essential ingredients of Section 304A and Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code are not satisfied, the criminal proceedings against the appellant are not
legally sustainable and are liable to be set aside.