Unqualified medical treatment causing death constitutes gross negligence punishable under Section 304A IPC.

The appellant, Arakhit Tandi, was a local practitioner in Nuapada who provided medical treatment despite possessing no recognized medical qualifications

In 2000, a two-year-old child suffering from fever was brought to the appellant, who diagnosed the ailment as malaria and administered two chloroquine injections

Immediately following the administration of the injections, the child’s condition deteriorated; he became unconscious and died shortly thereafter

The police initially registered an Unnatural Death case, which was later converted to a charge-sheet under Section 304 of the IPC

The trial court convicted the appellant on 05.09.2002 under Section 304A IPC, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this conviction and sentence in the present appeal, which remained pending for over two decades

The Court primarily applied Section 304A of the IPC, which pertains to causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide

It contrasted this with Section 304 of the IPC, which requires the prosecution to prove "criminal intention" or "knowledge" that the act was likely to cause death

The Court also relied on the principle that a person who undertakes medical treatment without requisite qualification or knowledge exposes human life to serious risk, which constitutes gross negligence

Reference was also made to the legal standards set in the Dr. Khusaldas case regarding medical negligence

The Court found the ocular evidence of P.W.s 1, 2, and 3 to be consistent and cogent in proving that the appellant administered the injections

This was corroborated by the medical testimony of P.W. 10 and the chemical examination report, which confirmed the presence of chloroquine in the child's viscera and identified it as the cause of death

The Court reasoned that the appellant's lack of medical qualification combined with the act of administering potent injections to a child of tender age amounted to a total lack of due care and competence, thereby fulfilling the criteria for "gross negligence"

However, the Court concurred with the trial court that there was no evidence to suggest the appellant intended to cause death or knew his actions were likely to result in death, thus excluding the application of Section 304 IPC

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that the incident occurred over 24 years prior and the appeal had been pending since 2002

It further observed that the appellant had already undergone approximately eleven months of incarceration during the investigation and trial phases

Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the conviction but modifying the sentence to the period of custody already undergone

The Court also awarded an honorarium of Rs. 7,500 to the Amicus Curiae for his assistance