Karnataka High Court
Dr. Nanjappa Shettikeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45931
CRL.P No. 3530 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3530 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Dr. NANJAPPA SHETTIKERI,
S/O BASSAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC :DOCTOR,
NO.53/1, 1ST CROSS,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ:RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581 115.
...PETITIONER
(BYSRI.G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.H.N.GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH RAJAJINAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, BENGLAURU,
BENGLAURU.
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR 2. KUMARI M.N.,
Location: HIGH D/O KUMARASWAMI.G.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
R/O H.NO.212, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
CHAMUNDI NAGAR, HOSAKERE HALLI,
BEHIND KEB, BENGALURU-85.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE AND
ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS DATED 01.07.2019 IN C.C.NO.14840/2019
PENDING BEFORE XXXIX ACMM COURT BENGALURU CITY IN FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S.304-A OF IPC REGISTERED IN RAJAJINAGAR
P.S., CRIME NO.116/2014 AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45931
CRL.P No. 3530 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the deceased Kamala had consumed poison and was admitted to the hospital run by the petitioner for treatment and she died. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is an ENT specialist, and had no facility for treating patients, who had consumed poison and he had not given treatment effectively, resulting in the death of Kamala, due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner.
3. Sri.G.S.Kannur, learned senior counsel submits that the Karnataka Medical Council has opined that the petitioner should have advised the family members of the deceased to shift the patient to another hospital, which is equipped for taking care of poison cases and therefore in the absence of any material to substantiate that the petitioner was rash and negligent in treating the deceased, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal v State through CBI 2014 AIR SCW 2689.
4. On the contrary, learned HCGP for the state submits that though the hospital run by the petitioner did not have facility to treat poisonous cases, treated the patient, which -3- NC: 2023:KHC:45931 CRL.P No. 3530 of 2022 resulted in death of the Kamala, and the same constitutes offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.
5. A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that the deceased was treated by the petitioner, and she had recovered and thereafter, she succumbed. The mother of the deceased filed a complaint with the Karnataka Medical Council alleging that rash and negligent act of the petitioner treatment caused the death of her daughter. The Karnataka Medical Council after enquiring passed an Order dated 13.04.2019, which reads as under:
"After going through the case sheets, affidavits, cross examination and written arguments of both the parties, Council is of the unanimous opinion that the treatment given by the Respondent at Karnataka Medical Centre is the first aid treatment. Respondent is an ENT surgeon and the Karnataka Medical Centre is also not equipped to take care of emergency due to poisoning. For further treatment Respondent should have advised to shift the patient to Centre which is equipped for taking care of poisoning cases. The hospital has given intimation to the Police Station about the poisoning after death of the patient. Hence respondent is "WARNED" by the council."
6. The order passed by the Medical Council establishes that the petitioner was not rash and negligent in treating the deceased, however, the only allegation is that he should have advised the family members to shift the patient to the centre, which was equipped for taking care of poisonous cases.
-4-NC: 2023:KHC:45931 CRL.P No. 3530 of 2022
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal (supra) at para-79 has held as follows:
79. To sum up: for an offence under Section 304-A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans that resulted in the death of the victim. As to what is meant by causa causans we may gainfully refer to Black's Law Dictionary. (Fifth Edition) which defines that expression as under:
"The immediate cause; the last link in the chain of causation."
8. The charge sheet material does not establish that rashness or gross negligence of the petitioner was the immediate cause for the death. Even accepting that the petitioner has not advised the members of the family to shift the patient, the same does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
ORDER
i. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned proceedings in CC No.14840/2019 on the file of XXXIX ACMM Court Bengaluru City, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NJ