Medical Negligence Causing Death Not Automatically Culpable Homicide: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that medical negligence resulting in death cannot always be equated with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court clarified that such a charge would be applicable only when the medical professional acted with the intent to cause death or had knowledge that their act was likely to result in death.
The matter arose from a petition filed by a surgeon who had performed an appendectomy on a 10-year-old girl at a private nursing home in Palakkad in 2012.
During the surgery, he administered spinal anaesthesia to the child without the involvement of an anaesthetist, following which the girl suffered a cardiac arrest and died within minutes. Acting on a complaint filed by the child’s mother, the police registered a case and subsequently filed a charge sheet under Section 304 IPC, alleging that the doctor acted with knowledge that his conduct—performing the procedure without an anaesthetist could likely result in the child’s death.
Initially, he approached the Sessions Court seeking discharge from the case. However, his application was rejected, prompting him to move the High Court.
A Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath said, “An act of medical negligence, even if resulting in death, would not automatically constitute culpable homicide unless there is intent or knowledge that the death would be a likely consequence. Medical negligence cannot be equated with culpable homicide. In medical negligence cases, if the death is due to failure to exercise reasonable care or a breach of duty by a medical professional, Section 304 A may be invoked.“
Before the High Court, the doctor’s counsel argued that even if the allegations were accepted as true, they did not meet the threshold required for prosecution under Section 304 IPC. It was submitted that there was no evidence to show that the doctor had knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death, and at best, the incident might amount to medical negligence punishable under Section 304A IPC, which deals with causing death by negligence.
In response, the Public Prosecutor referred to a medical board report, which concluded that the child died due to complications from the spinal anaesthesia, which the surgeon had failed to properly manage.
The High Court held that there was no prima facie evidence to suggest that the doctor possessed the degree of knowledge necessary to invoke Section 304 IPC. The Court noted that he was a qualified and experienced medical professional and that doctors holding an MBBS registration are legally qualified to administer anaesthesia. Therefore, his act of administering spinal anaesthesia without an anaesthetist, though potentially negligent, did not reflect a conscious awareness or intent that it could result in death.
Consequently, the High Court overturned the Sessions Court’s order and discharged him from the criminal case under Section 304 IPC.
Cause Title: Dr. K Rajagopalan v. Regha & Anr., [2025:KER:36403]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate KP Balagopal
Respondents: Advocates Unni Sebastian Kappen, EC Bineesh
