DR. SOU JAYSHREE UJWAL INGOLE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 865 · Decided: 06-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 865 
DR. SOU JAYSHREE UJWAL INGOLE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.636of2017) 
APRIL 06, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - s.482 - Criminal 
proceedings u/s.304-A against medical professional - Petition for 
quashing the proceedings - In the instant case, deceased was 
admitted in hospital for treatment of Haemophilia and attended upon 
by doctors - After a week, emergency medical officer attended upon 
the deceased and found that he was suffering fiwn abdominal pai1i 
and sent a call to appellant who was surgeon on call - Appellant 
went to hospital on being called and attended upon the deceased 
and made a note that a physician be called and thereafter she left 
the hospital - Next 111orning the condition of deceased worsened 
and he died - Criminal complaint filed against appellant alleging 
that after having called a physician she did not wait in the hospital 
and did not attend upon the patient especially when the patient was 
suffering from Hae111ophilia - Charge of negligence - Petition for 
quashing not allowed 111ainly on the ground that question whether 
inaction of the appellant in leaving the deceased and not waiting 
for the physician to turn up a111ounted to rash and negligent act on 
her behalf was to be decided during trial - On appeal, held: The 
only allegation •against the appellant was that she left the patient -
Appellant was a surgeon. on call - She ca111e to the hospital when 
she was called and examined the patient - As per her judgment, she 
could find no evidence of bleeding or injury and, therefore. she 
noted that a physician be called - Thereafter, she left the hospital 
at about 11. 00 p.111. - True it is that she did not wait for the physician 
to come, but it can. be assu111ed that she would have expected that 
the physician would come soon - This may be an error in judg111ent 
but definitely not a rash and negligent act conte111plated uls.304-A 
!PC- Cri111inal proceedings quashed- Penal Code, 1860 - s.304-A. 
865 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
866 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. This is .not a case where the appellant should 
face trial especially when 20 years have already ehipsed. The 
only allegation against the appellant was that she left the patient. 
It was nobody's case that she was called again by the Nursing 
staff on duty. If the condition of the patient had worsened between 
11.00 p.m. and 5.00 a.m., the next morning, the Nursing staff 
could have again called for the appellant, but they did not do so. 
Next morning, the doctor on Emergency Duty attended upon the 
patient but, unfortunately, he died. In the facts and circumstance 
of this case, it cannot be said that the appellant is guilty of criminal 
negligence. At best it is an error of judgment. No case of 
committing a rash and negligent act contemplated under Section 
304-A IPC is made out against the appellant. Her case is similar 
to that of the Emergency Medical Officer, who has been 
discharged. [Paras 9, 10 and 11] [872-D-H; 873-A) 
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 
SCC l : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference · 
E 
[2005) 2 Suppl. SCR 307 
relied on 
Para8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
636of20l7. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18,06.2014 of the High Court 
F 
of Judicature of Bombay,_ Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Criminal 
Application (APL) No. 354 of2,012. 
Anil Mardikar, Sr. Adv., Shirish K. Deshpande, Adv. for the 
Appellant. 
G 
Gagan Sanghi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Amol Nirmal Kumar 
H 
Suryawanshi, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. SOU JA,YSHREE UJWAL INGOLE v. STATE OF 
. MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant herein is a doctor and has challenged the Order 
dated 18.06.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, 
Nagpur Bench in Criminal Application (APL) No. 354 of2012, whereby 
the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC for quashing 
the criminal proceedings initiated against her under Section 304-A IPC 
was dismissed. 
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Shrikrishna 
Gawai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was admitted on 
account of injuries suffered in a road accident, in the Irvin Hospital, 
Amravati on 29.08.1997 for medical treatmen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.