Whether Danger To Human Life Was Avoided Or Not Has No Significance When Act Was Done Rashly Or Negligently So As To Endanger Human Life: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by a Lab Technician seeking quashing of a case registered against him under section 336 of IPC and clarified that whether the danger to human life was avoided or not has no significance when an act was done either rashly or negligently so as to endanger the human life or personal safety of others.
The accused approached the High Court by filing a under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the final Report in the criminal case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen asserted, “Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable or proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular which having regard to all circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.”
Advocate Sreekala Krishnadas represented the Petitioner-accused while Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George represented the Respondent.
The prosecution alleged the commission of offence under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the accused and the precise accusation was that the accused, who was working at Metropolis Lab, when requested to conduct 'Elisa Hit Antibody Test' as per the prescription of the doctor, for the mother of the de facto complainant, she informed that the same test was not available in the lab. Subsequently the accused conducted Hit Antibody Test by 'Particle Gel Immuno Assay Method' rashly and negligently so as to endanger the life, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 336 of IPC.
Referring to section 336 of IPC, the Bench explained that if one commits rash or negligent act so as to endanger human life or personal safety of another, he comes under the pale of this provision.
The Bench also observed, “Thus, Section 336 of IPC encompasses doing an act rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others and no matter whether anyone is injured or affected or not within the orbit of 'endangering life' or 'safety.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that as per doctor’s request, the doctor demanded to do 'Elisa-Hit Antibody Test'. When the mother of the de facto complainant reached the Lab, the accused who is well aware of the fact that 'Hit Antibody Test' was not available in the Lab, offered another method, viz; 'Particle Gel Immuno Assay Method' and the result of the same was 'negative'.
As per the doctor's statement, when the doctor noticed that Metropolis Lab conducted 'Particle Gel Immuno Assay Method' instead of Hit Antibody Test and the same was not useful, he took another sample of blood and obtained report from the Medical College, with 'positive' result.
This result indicated that if the report of Metropolis Lab by using 'Particle Gel Immuno Assay Method' was relied on, the positive nature of affection of Covid Vaccine could not have been detected. However, fatality was avoided since the doctor, instead of waiting for the result from Metropolis Lab, had done another blood sample test, and on getting 'positive' result, necessary treatment was given and the patient was saved. The Bench also added, “In fact, whether the danger to human life was avoided or not has no significance when an act was done either rashly or negligently so as to endanger the human life or personal safety of others.”
“Thus, on no stretch of imagination one could say that the overt act done by the petitioner is not an act of negligence because the Lab Technician is duty-bound to conduct the test commanded by the doctor or to send back the patient, if the said test/procedure was not available at the lab. Therefore, negligence on the part of the petitioner in this matter is foreseeable”, the Bench said.
Another aspect of this case was if at all the doctor could not have understood the negligent act done by the petitioner and had relied on the report with 'negative' result, treatment would not have been possible and the same might have led to danger to the life of the patient or to her personal safety.
Noting that the act of the petitioner would satisfy the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 336 of IPC as argued by the Public Prosecutor, negating the contentions raised by the petitioner, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Princy Mol v. State Of Kerala [2024:KER:87632]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sreekala Krishnadas, C.vivek, Ashly James, Bonifus P.A., Devika Warrie
Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George