Having considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the alleged rash and negligent act cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly rules out any negligence on the part of the petitioner. According to their evidence, when the patient was brought to the hospital, the Doctor said that antivenom injection was not available in the hospital, and asked the patient’s relatives to get it from any medical shop, and as the medicine was not available, they returned. Then, the petitioner searched for the medicine in the hospital, found out and gave it to the Doctor. From the above, it is not known as to how any rash and negligent act can be attributed to the petitioner. Further, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is to the effect that the Doctor, who treated the patient, was negligent enough and the husband of PW1 died because of the her rash and negligent act. The prosecution, for obvious reasons, has not chosen to examine the Doctor - Sharada. In those circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner is rash and negligent. Even if the evidence of PW3 is accepted, it cannot be said that the negligent act of the petitioner in not searching and giving the injection at the earliest point of time to the Doctor for administering it to the patient, caused the death of the deceased. In my considered view, there must be direct nexus between the rash and negligent act and the death of the deceased. In other words, it is not enough for the prosecution to show that the petitioner’s action was one of the causes for the death of the deceased and it must show that death is a direct consequence of the
