Even If Proper Medical Care Could Have Prevented Death, Person Who Inflicted Injury Cannot Be Absolved Of His Act Of Causing Death: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court held that according to Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), even if the death could have been prevented with proper medical care, the individual responsible for inflicting the injury cannot be excused from causing the death.
The Court dismissed the Petition seeking bail in a case involving the alleged death of a doctor on May 10, 2023.
The Court noted that when a deliberate attempt to commit culpable homicide results in someone's death, it is considered either murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Court also noted that in cases where the action leads to death, it cannot be solely regarded as an attempted offence under Section 308 of the IPC.
The Bench comprising Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “further, as per Explanation 2 to Section 299 of IPC, even if proper medical care could have prevented the death, the person who inflicted the injury cannot be absolved of his act of causing death”.
Advocate Biju Antony Aloor appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose with Additional Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan appeared for the Respondent.
A bail application was filed under Section 439 of the CrPC. The Petitioner was the accused in the case of a session involving the alleged death of a doctor on May 10, 2023. The Petitioner was accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) including murder, as well as offences under specific Kerala laws. The Petitioner contended that for bail citing the lengthy period of incarceration and asserts that continued custody is unnecessary, especially considering the circumstances surrounding the incident.
The Court noted that the murder of the deceased occurred on May 10, 2023, and caused widespread shock in the state, prompting concerns about the safety of doctors. The Bench observed that this incident led to the intervention of the Court, resulting in the development of a new protocol to enhance the safety of medical professionals and judicial officers. In this case, the petitioner initially admitted to the hospital as an injured person, stands accused of brutally stabbing the victim, resulting in her death.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that the incident, involving 16 stab wounds, was described as a heinous crime. A Special Investigation Team conducted an extensive inquiry, questioning 106 witnesses and filing a final report after 89 days. The prosecution argued that releasing the petitioner would pose a threat to society, given the severity of the crime and the alleged ruthless nature of the attack.
The Court rejected the argument of the Petitioner that the alleged offence would only amount to a lesser charge under Section 308 IPC.
The Bench noted that “when an attempted act of culpable homicide leads to the death of a person, it amounts to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When the act resulted in death, it cannot be treated only as an attempt to commit culpable homicide under section 308”. Additionally, according to Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the IPC, even if proper medical care could have prevented death, the individual who inflicted the injury cannot be absolved of causing death.
The Court observed that the post-mortem report revealed the severity of the victim's injuries, with 16 incised wounds among 26 total injuries, causing death by penetrating the chest cavity and damaging the lungs. The accused has a history of alcohol use disorder, attempted murder of his wife, and is diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder.
The Bench noted that steps were being taken to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor and ensure a speedy trial. Given these circumstances, the Court noted that this was not a suitable case for the petitioner to be granted bail.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the bail application.
Cause Title: Sandeep v State Of Kerala (2024/KER/8507)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates K. P. Prasanth, Archana Suresh, Haritha Hariharan and Ailin Elezabath Mathew.
Respondent: Advocates Nikita J. Mendez, P. M. Rafiq, Ajeesh K. Sasi, M.Revikrishnan, Sruthy N. Bhat, Rahul Sunil and Sruthy K. K.