Mens rea is required, to prove the crime under Section 304 IPC: High Court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 921 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 210 Year 2020 Thana SAHPUR District Bhojpur Chandra Prakash Gupta @ Bablu aged about 50 years Sex Male Son of Jagdish Gupta Resident of village Shahpur Police Station Shahpur District Bhojpur The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant Mr. Choubey Jawahar Advocate Ms. Suman Kumari Singh APP Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Choubey Jawahar learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Suman Kumari Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary learned counsel for the 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Shahpur PS Case No. 2120 dated 04.07.2020 instituted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The allegation against the petitioner who is the owner of a medicine shop is that when the informant went to his shop with his nephew who was ill he had administered an Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 dt.24 09 2021 injection due to which his condition deteriorated and despite him having been taken to the Referral Hospital from where he was asked to go to a better hospital and on the way he died. Thus it is alleged that due to administration of wrong medicine the death had occurred 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is running a medicine shop from the year 2004 and there has been no complain and the present allegation is false as no such act has been committed by him. It was submitted that later the informant himself has filed compromise petition before the Court below stating that due to him not being in proper state of mind the name of the petitioner has been taken and that he has no grievance against him. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no reason or motive to commit any crime that too of such a serious nature of taking the life of a young boy when he sells medicine for easing the illness and pain of others. It was further submitted that during investigation witnesses have stated with regard to the petitioner being 6. Earlier the Court had asked learned APP to obtain the up to date legible photo copy of the entire case diary of Shahpur PS Case No. 2120 from the Superintendent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 dt.24 09 2021 of Police Bhojpur along with the postmortem report. Learned APP submitted that the same has been received 7. Learned counsel submitted that there cannot be any reason or motive for the petitioner to commit the crime as he runs a medicine shop i.e. his livelihood and also that there was no enmity or mens rea or even any reason to have commited the crime. In fact it was submitted that when the condition of the nephew of the informant did not improve it has been stated in the FIR that it was the petitioner who arranged for sending him to a 8. Learned APP submitted that the postmortem report does not disclose anything. However it was submitted that as per the allegation the petitioner had administered a wrong injection 9. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that because of some misconception and non recognition of the petitioner his name was taken in the FIR but he is not aggrieved and does not hold the petitioner responsible for the death of his nephew and that is why he has filed a compromise petition in the 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as there does not appear to be any reason for the petitioner to commit Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 dt.24 09 2021 the crime being only the proprietor of a medicine shop and later on the informant himself filing a compromise petition before the Court stating that due to misconception and being told by somebody present there he had named the petitioner and alleged certain things against him but having realized that he has no role in the death of his nephew he has filed compromise petition which has been supported by learned counsel for the informant the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail 11. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Bhojpur Arrah in Shahpur PS Case No. 2120 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner andthat the petitioner shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds 12. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.921 dt.24 09 2021 notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 13. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner apprehended arrest under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of  description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” The petition is in connection with Shahpur PS Case No. 210 of 2020 dated 04.07.2020. In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 24th of September 2021 in the case of Chandra Prakash Gupta @ Bablu  Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 97 of 2021] Mr Choubey Jawahar represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Ms Suman Kumari Singh represented the State of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, Mr Nitya Nand Tiwary represented as the advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The case relates to the facts, wherein the petitioner who is the owner of a medicine shop was accused of administrating a wrong medicine which caused the death of the informant’s nephew who was ill and was administered an injection due to which the condition deteriorated but however he died. The counsel representing the petitioner held that even since 2004 he has been the owner of the medicine shop and there has been no such complaint and he has been falsely implicated in the present allegation. The counsel further held that the petitioner in bona fide faith administered the medicine with regard to the illness and the petitioner while constituting his duty had no element of mens rea (guilty mind) and motive to cause the death of the informant’s nephew. The petitioner was the one who arranged to send the deceased to health care. The counsel held that there has been a compromise petition filed by the informant stating that there is no grievance against the petitioner and because he was not in a proper state of mind the name of the petitioner was given. Even after investigation, the witnesses have submitted that the petitioner is innocent. The Court had directed the APP to obtain the up-to-date legible photocopy of the entire case diary of Shahpur PS Case No. 210 of 2020, from the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur along with the post mortem report and the same was submitted. The Additional Public Prosecutor held that it is not controverted that the post-mortem does not disclose that the petitioner committed the crime, however, there has been allegation for the wrong injection. The counsel for the informant held that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR due to some misconception and non-recognition of the petitioner and even the informant held that he does not hold the petitioner responsible for the death of his nephew and a compromise petition has been filed. The Honourable Court held that since there does not appear any mens rea element in the crime. The petitioner administered the medicine in bona fide faith had he was only the proprietor of a medicine shop and later on, the informant himself filing a compromise petition before the Court stating that “due to misconception and being told by somebody present there, he had named the petitioner and alleged certain things against him but having realized that he has no role in the death of his nephew.” Therefore, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The Honourable Court concluded that “The petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties to Chief Judicial Magistrate, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”