JUGGANKHAN JAMSHANKHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, aged about 55 years, and registered as 3 homoeopathic medical practitioner at the relevant time at the Akodia Mandi in the Dist of Shajapur, has been. convicted by the learned Sessions, Judge Shajapur under Section 302, 1. P. C. , for the murder of Deobai, wife of Gopal Rajput, aged about 20 years, by administering to her a quantity of extract of stramonium (Dhatura), and also a full leaf of the same plant, knowing or having reason to know that the leaf as well as the extract are extremely poisonons, and in the manner and quantities administered, certain to cause death of the patient, and not indicated in any recognized system and certainly not in homoeopathy as the proper medicine for the disease that he was ostensibly treating, namely, "naru" or guinea-worm.

(2.) IN the lower Court as well as here, the ques tions were the following. On the facts whether he did give the patient either the fresh leaves or the ex tract of stramonium or both, and not merely what he calls the appropriate treatment ("yogya ilaj") whatever that might mean; and whether beyond reason able doubt, the woman's death was the result of dhatura poisoning. Thirdly, that even on the finding that he did administer dhatura leaf and extract, whether he would be not guilty, because this has been prescribed as an appropriate treatment by internal administration in some book on Ayurved produced by him in this Court, which is a system recognized by Government. Finally, whether he \s protected under Section 88 of the Penal Code and further, as an alternative if he would be guilty only under section 304-A of causing death by a rash and negligent act, and not of murder, that is, of doing an act which he had reason to know to be so intrinsically dangerous that death was a certain result in due course of nature. The case brings out very important problems relating to the killings on account of callousness or sheer stupidity of Ignorant charlatans pretending to be doctors or physicians, treat their patients and administer deadly poisons and also, on the evidentiary value and effect of earlier acts, similar to the one in controversy.

(3.) THE following is the common ground in this case. Ahodia Mandi in Shajapur district is a big village with a considerable market, a hospital with a medico-legal centre in charge of an allopathic doctor of a degree qualification. There is besides, a police chowld or beat house, the proper thana itself being at considerable distance. Apparently, a comparatively now arrival there, the appellant had widely advertised his special skill in curing various diseases, including naru or guinea-worm which seems to be somewhat common in that locality. On the morning of 30th May, 1961, a patient, namely, Deobai wife of Gopal Rajput--a girl of about 20 years--was brought there by her uncle Ghisaji (P. W. 3) accompanied for assistance by two women relations -- Oaryaobai (P. W. 4) and Gulabbai (P. W. 5 ). They had certainly besn attracted by the leaflets circulated by the appellant. She had some blisters out of which guinea-worms were emerging. They put her under the appellant's treatment which began at about 9. 0 A. M. Then she was in something like a coma for a few hours. However, shortly before the very end, the appellant advised that there were still signs of life and if they took her away to their home, the fresh air on the road might revive her. The controversy on the facts is in regard to what happened in this interval, what medicines were given, and what reaction the patient showed. There is clear evidence of a precisely similar happening on the 24th, the bearing, if any, of which, on the legal effect of the ascertained facts of this case, will have to be separately examined.