Juggankhan versus State of Madhya Pradesh

¶1

.JUGGANKHAN

¶2

A

¶3

v.

¶4

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

¶5

•

¶6

August 10, 1964

¶7

lK. SUBBA RAO AND S. M. Sllll JI.)

¶8

B

¶9

CrimlMJLaw-Pouonoiumedicine-Prescription without stud1~ _possibleefiect-lfrashand negligentact-IndianPenal Code,_1860 (45_of_1860)_s._304A.
Lured by a pamphlet advertising that, among other things, thea~ lant,aregistered Homoeopathic medical practitioner, treated_Naru_(Guinea Worm),one D went to the clinicofthe appellant. Theappellantcu- mined D and administered 24 dropsofsuamonium and a leafof_dhatura._ After taking the medicineDstarted feelingrestless"lidill,varlow antidOtes were givenbutshe was not relieved. She vomitedtwiC<Ibut the vomits were not preserved and sent foreumination. Ultimatelyin theevening she died.Theautopsy surgeon reported that the causeof thedeath couldbeascertained only after the resultofthe chemical analy- siawasreceived andhesent to the chemical examiner the stomachwith its contents and pieceoofliver, spleen and kidney.TheChemicalExa- miner reportedthatnopoison couldbedetected in anyoftheseitems. Theappellant's contentionthatit has not been provedthatdeathrCllu1ted from_dhatura_poisoning was negatived by both courts below,anddie High Court confirmedhisconviction under s. 302, Indian Penal Code.On appeal by special leave HELD:(i)Onthe factstheconclusionofthe courta belowthatdciath was the.resultof_Dhatura_poison couldnotbe'"idlobeerroneow.[160] (ii)Theappellant wasguiltyunder s. 304A, Indian Penal Code. On the facts, s. 299, Indian Penal Code, did not ap;ily and the appellant - beacquittedofthe charge unders.302, Indian Penal Code.[I9C]	c D E
Itseemsthatthe appellant prescribed the medicine withoutthorouPJy studying what wouldbetheeffectofgiving24dropsofstramoniuma aleafof_dhqtura. Itisa rash and negligent act to prescribe poiaoaoos medicines without studying their possibleefl'ecL[ISH]	F
_JohnOniA.kerele_v._The King_A.I.R. 1943 P.C. 72, distinpiilh-
ed. C!tIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION:CriminalAppealNo. 171of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and orderdated May 10,t962 of the MadhyaPrad~High Court Indore Bench atIndoreinCriminal Appeal No. 344 •_oi_1961.	G
S. Mohan Kumaramanga/am,M.K.Ramamurthi, R.K.a.,, _D.P. Singh_and_S.C.Agarwal,_for the appellant.

¶10

•

¶11

'

¶12

I. N. Shroff, for the respondent

¶13

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H Slbl J. This is an appeal by special leave directed .against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh eon-

¶14

JUGGAN.KHAN V. STATE (Sikri /.)

¶15

15

¶16

A finning the conviction and sentence of the appellant under s. 302, I.P.C.

¶17

The case of the prosecution, in brief, which has been accepted both by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, is as follows. ·The appellant is a registered Homoeopathic medical practitioner B under Madhya Pradesh Homoeopathic and Bi<rchemic Practitioners Act (Madhya Pradesh Act 26 of 1951).

¶18

In about May 1960, he started residing and practising at Akodiya' Mandi. He issued a pamphlet advertising that, among other things, he treated Naru (guinea wonn). Lurlld by this, Smt. Deobi, aged about 20 years, who had been suffering from C guinea wonn for six weeks, accompanied by her uncle Chisaji (P.W. 3), mother Daryaobai _(P.W. 4) and aunt Guiab Bai (P. W. 6) went to the clinic of the appellant on May 30, 1961, at about 8 a.m. She was examined by the appellant and administered 24 drops of mother pncture stramonium and a leaf of D dhatura. After taking this medicine she started feeling restleas and ill; various antidotes were given but she was not relieved. She vomited twice but the vomits were not preserved and sent for examination to the chemiCal examiner. Ultimately at aboot 5 p.m. she died.

¶19

Dr. Patodia (P.W. 7) perfonned the autopsy .on May 31,

¶20

E 1961, and reported that the cause of death could be ascertained only after the result of chemical analysis. is received. He sent to the chemical examiner the stomach with its contents and· pieces of liver, spleen and kidney. The chemical examiner, however, reported that no poison could be detected in any of these items. This is seized by the learned coun8el for the appellant and he has

¶21

F urged that it :llllS _not been proved that death resulted from Dhatura poisoning. But both the courts below have found against him. He further urges that what was administered was not a fatal dose 1111d he has seriously challenged the calculations made by the learned Sessions Judge of the contents of poison in the leaf alleged

¶22

· to have been given to the deceased. He has also challenged the

¶23

G eoncurrent findings of the courts below tbat a dhatura leaf and 24 drops of mother tincture of stramonium was administered flO the .deceased. His final contention is that &n 'Ille facts found it was 11ot a case of murder under s. 302; I.P.C.,. but of an offence under s. 304A, LP.C.

¶24

H We have looked into the evidence but .we are. unable to say that the concurrent finding of the courts. below that 24 drops

¶25

.of stramonium and a leaf of dhatura were administered is mani-

¶26

16

¶27

(I 965J I S.C.R.

¶28

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶29

footly wrong. They have relied on the evidence of Chisaji, dcceased's unclt!, Pl4, a register of patients maintained by the _appellant, PIO, the prescription written by the appellant, and the evidence of Shyam Swaroop Mishra, P. W. 14, who recognized the handwriting of the appellant. We think they were right in relying on the above evidence.

¶30

A

¶31

B

¶32

We are also of the opinion that the courts below were right in concluding that death resulted from poisoning. It is true that Dr. Patodia could not say what poison caused her death. But he_ could say that death was due to something that was an irritant, and it could be due to dhatura or belladonna or any other poison. The deceased, according to Chisaji, P.W. 3, was c a healthy woman, and had not taken any other medicine before arriving at the clinic. She was at the clinic from 9 a.m. till she died. The only medicine she took, apart from antidotes, was what was administered, i.e., 24 drops of stramonium and a dhatura leaf. She started feeling restless and ill soon after taking these things. On these facts the conclusion of the courts D below that death was the result of dhat11ra poison cannot be <aid to be erroneous.

¶33

The only question that remains is about the nature of the offence committed by the appellant. Should he be convicted under s. 302 or s. 304A. LP.C? In our opinion, the appellant is liable to be convicted under s. 304A and not s. 302, l.P.C.

¶34

E

¶35

Dr. Choudhary, P.W. 17, a registered medical practitioner, in the course of his evidence, stated:

¶36

"In the opinion of Dr. Modi, the writer of Medical Jurisprudence, a dose of 20 to 20! gr~ios of dhatura is faial F and according to Dr. Taylor about 16 grains of it is a fatal dose. Therefore, I can say that if a fresh leaf of dhatura of 6 inches length and 4 inches breadth along with 24 drops of stramonium mother tincture of Homoeopathic preparation is given to any patient then the joint effect of both may be fatal and if it is kept in ·G mind that the patient is allergic and idiosyncratic for stramonium then such a dose mtLst be fatal."

¶37

Th:s is relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to determine what v.ould he the fatal dose. We have however looked up Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (14th Edition) and Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurispmdence (11th Edition) but they do not quite say what Dr. Choudhary had assijmcd. Modi writes at p. 713 thu' :

H

••

I

JUGGANKHAN V. STATE (Sikri /.)

17

..

A

B

"Fatal Dose-Uncertain. Four datura fruits pounded: . and mixed with flour were given to six men, four of whom died. A ripe fruit weighs, on an average; about 2 drachms, and contains the seeds which weigh about . It drachms. ()ne hundred dried datura seeds weigh 20 to 20t grains. A decoc' tion of 125 seeds of datura stramonium has proved fatal to a woman."

¶47

According to Taylor (p. 551, .Vol. In :

¶48

~ c

¶49

D

¶50

E

¶51

"Toxkity and Fatal Dose. The active principle, a mixture of hyoscine, atropine and hyoscyamine, is extremely toxic, and as the plant contains approximately t to I per cent of alkaloids, it must be considered cixtremely dangerous. The seeds are highly poisonous, inasmuch as they contain a larger proportion of alkaloids than other parts of the plant. Death may take place although the whole of the seeds are ejected.

¶52

A child of 2 swallowed about 100 seeds of stramonium weighing 16 grains. The usual symptoms were manifested in an hour, and the child died in 24 hours although twenty seeds had been ejected by vomiting and eighty by purging. Sufficient alkaloid to destroy life had been absorbed from the entire seeds and carried into the blood.

¶53

In a case whi~b became the subject of a trial at Osnabrock, a wo1t1an administered to her mother a decoction of the bruised seeds ·of the thorn-apple, of F which it was supposed there were about 125. She very soon became delirious, threw her arms about and spoke incoherently; she died in 7 hours."

¶54

. '

¶55

•

¶56

Dr. Patodia (P.W. 7) could not definitely say what dose of tincture stramonium should be suflicntly fatal to life. But be G further opined that half an ounce of tincture stramonium. which to; in sufficient e.xcss of the normal medicinal dose <which he put <it 10 lo 30 drops) will be sufficient to cause death.

¶57

On this material we cannot say that it has been cstablisbed that what the appellant prescribed was necessarily a fatal dose. Further. the finding of the learned Se&sions Judge that the le;if II weighed 40 grains and the poison content would be I:. grains does not proceed on any sound• basis. Chisaji described the leaf as a big one but it was green and fresh. Laxminarayan.

¶58

(1965) l S.C.R.

¶59

18

¶60

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶61

C ·,

¶62

Vaidya, P. W. 13, gave the dimensions of the biggest leaf as A having a length of 7 inches and breadth of 3! inches grown on the land having application of manure. Dr. Choudhary, P.W. 17, said that "on the basis of hypothesis if a fresh leaf of dhatura is 6 inches in length and 4 inches in breadth and is 40 grains in weight, it wouid contain 27 grains moisture and 13 grains of solid stramonium, i.e. poison." We think that this · B hypothetical evidence should not have been relied upon to determine tho content of solid stramonium in the' leaf alfoged to have been administered to the deceased. It follows from this that poisonous contents of the leaf have not been satisfactorily established and if this is so, the prosecution has failed C to prove that the dose gfven to the· deceased was necessarily fatal. Further, Dr. Choudhary stated that it had not come to his notice that in any of the Homoeopathic systems of medicine stramopium mother tincture or stramonium in potenised fonn or a green 'leaf of dhatura is not given: for treatment of guinea-wonn. According to Dr. R. K. Singh, P.\V. 16, mother tincture stramonium can D be given for removing foreign bodies, though it is not specifically ' mentioned in Muteria Medica of Homoeopathy that it. can be used for treatment of guinea-wonn. B~ t it will be remembered that in this system treatment is by symptoms.

¶63

A

¶64

D

¶65

On these facts, it appears to us that s. 299, I.P.C., does not apply. It cannot be held that the appellant administered stramonium drops and the dhatura leaf with the knowledge that he was likely by such an act to cause the death of the deceased. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant must be acquitted of the charge under s. 302.

¶66

the. E

¶67

TI1e appellant was charged in the alternative under s. 304A. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that the ingredients of s. 304A have not been established inasmuch as it was not a rash or negligent act. We are unable to accept this contention. Strarnonium and a dhalura leaf are poisonous. The appellant was registered as a Homoeopath, and in Homoeopathy a dhatura leaf is never administered as such. This much· he admits himself. According to the evidence on the record, in no system of 'llled.icine, except perhaps in the Ayurvedic system, the dhalura leaf is given as cure foc guinea wonns. It seems that the appellant prescribed tho medicine without thoroughly studying what .would be the effect of giving 24 drops of stramonium and a leaf . of·dhatura. It is a rash and negligent act to prescribe poisonous medicim:s without studying their probable effect. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the case of

F

G

..

..

'

.JUGGANKHAN v. STATB (Sikri /,)

¶74

A John. Oni Akerele v. The King(') a decision of the Privy Council in an appeal from West Africa. But this decision is wholly distinguishable. The doctor in that case was a duly qualified medical .practitioner and had given an injection ot · Sobita, which consists of sodium bismuth tartrate. It was alleged that the doctor had given a dose stronger than the proper ,dose.

¶75

B On the facts, their Lordships came to the conclusion that ·cri.minal negligence had not been proved. It is true,. as observed by their Lordships, that care should be taken before imputing criminal negligence to a professional man acting in the course of his. profession, but even taking this care we have no doubt that the appellant was guilty of a rash and negligent act. Acccird-

¶76

C ingly, we hold that he is guilty under s. 304A, l.P.C.

¶77

In the result, "the appellant's conviction under s. 302, I.P.C.,

¶78

is set aside and he is ccinvicted under s. 304A and sentenced to 2 years' · rigorous imprisonment.

¶79

Conviction altered .

¶80

-- ,,

¶81

(I) A.l.R. 1943 P.C. 12.

Juggankhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juggankhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Periaswami Goundan and Ors. versus Sundaresa Iyer and Ors.

Commissioner of Income-Tax Bombay versus Chugandas and Co., Bombay

K. Hutchi Gowder versus Richobdas Fathaimull and Company

Musammat Murti Dussadhin and Others versus Surajdeo Singh and Others

Potti Lakshmi Perumallu versus Potti Krishna Venamma

State of Maharashtra versus Mayer Hans George