SC: Mens Rea As Intent Not Required In Medical Negligence Cases

Background of the Case

• Before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court in Patna, the appellant had filed a complaint against the private respondents.
• They were charged with a crime punishable under Section 304, 316/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
• After recording the evidence of three witnesses produced by the complainant and other materials on record, the Trial Court was persuaded to issue summons to the private respondents in connection with the stated offence.
• As a result, the private respondents challenged the order in the High Court through writ petitions.
• The High Court passed an order. The summoning order passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, came to be set aside.
• The SLP was then before the Divisional Bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Supreme Court's Observations

• The Court was of the view that the High Court did not weigh the reasons of the Trial Court. Instead, the High Court considered only that no evidence of mens rea or malicious or bad intent was present.
• The Bench specifically mentions this view of the High Court as erroneous. It also points out that sans mens rea would still constitute medical negligence, and mens rea as intent in a case of medical negligence is not compulsory.
• The Bench also noticed that the Trial Court failed to insist on medical evidence or examination of professional doctors by the complainant. Instead, the Court summoned the respondents.

Order

• The Bench ordered for the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the summoning order issued by the Trial Court to be set aside.
• The parties were assigned for a fresh consideration of the case before the Trial Court.
• The Bench made it very clear that the Trial Court has to call upon the complainant to examine the professional doctor as a witness and proceed with the case afresh.
• The Bench further added that the Trial Court must proceed without the influence of the observations made in the previous two orders and on the case's merits.

What do you think about this case?