Involuntary manslaughter can be defined as the act when a person intends to do harm to another person, as a consequence death is resulted which was neither foreseen nor was it intended on the part of the guilty person.[1]While, manslaughter can be understood as an unlawful killing of another without malice, either expressed or implied.[2]Under Indian Penal Code, manslaughter can be categorised under Culpable Homicide.[3]The recent case with regard to the death of famous pop singer Michael Jackson (“King of Pop”), and the conviction of Conrad Murray, Michael’s doctor, has come out recently and has once again thrown light on the issue as regards Involuntary Manslaughter.[4]The doctor has been sentence to jail for a period of upto 4 years. He was accused to providing Michael with propofol before the latter died because of cardiac arrest. Negligence had been alleged on the part of the doctor.
Though before independence, a similar case can be found in the Indian context when Privy Council enunciated the principles as regards Criminal Negligence by a doctor.[5]In this case, doctor was accused of manslaughter, reckless and negligent act. Council, while dealing with the case, was of the firm opinion that a doctor cannot be held liable for the death of the patient as long as his acts are not negligent. Another such case came before the House of Lords, where it was of the view that in order to make doctor liable for manslaughter, it shall be shown that a breach of duty was carried out by the doctor. Thereafter, it should be proved that the breach so caused has in fact resulted into the death of the patient.[6]Another important decision as regards involuntary manslaughter is Regina v. Prentice,[7] where court laid down certain tests which ought to be fulfilled before concluding that the doctor is in fact liable for involuntary manslaughter. And according to this decision, important ingredients for the offence of involuntary manslaughter are breach of duty, that breach of duty to cause death.
In American context too, involuntary manslaughter has been dealt with due care and attention. California Penal code defines involuntary manslaughter as “......as in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or with due caution and circumspection”[8]In the case People v. Seiler, court was of the opinion that the degree of negligence for making oneself liable for involuntary manslaughter need not go to the extent of being reckless. Although, being an equivalent to culpable would suffice the purpose.
Even American Courts are not untested with the difficulty which may arise while dealing with these cases. There can, sometimes, come up certain situation when it would become quite difficult for the court to decide on the matter. Let us take an example where a doctor, whole performing an operation, acts negligently (Minor Negligence) because of which the patient dies, who was already suffering from such a treacherous disease where his chance of emerging safely from the operation is negligent. In such a situation, can the doctor be made liable for the death of the patient? He can be or cannot be made liable depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, and by also taking into consideration the fact whether the doctor reasonable care and professionalism which is mandatorily required to be maintained. Still, problem does not seem to be an easy one.
Again coming to the Indian Context, Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code deals with the situations as regards medical negligence, and this section would be applied along with Section 299 (Culpable Homicide) while dealing with the cases as regards involuntary manslaughter. In the instant case, defence attorneys for Dr. Murray argued that Jackson was addicted to the consumption of propofil so that he could sleep easily. On the other hand, it had d been testified by the expert witnesses that propofol does not have any sort of bearing on the sleep of a person. Some of these facts convinced the jury (Jury system had been abolished in India after Famous “Nanavati Case”) to convict Dr. Murray.[9] This means that Dr. Murray was in fact guilty of breach of duty because of the negligence of his part, which eventually turned out to be the causation of death of Jackson because of the negligence so caused.
[1] REGINA v. CREAMER, [1965] 3 WLR 583
[2] Black’s Law Dictionary
[3] Section 299, Indian Penal Code, 1960
[5] John Oni Akerele v. R., AIR 1943 PC 72
[6] REGINA v. ADOMAKO, [1994] 3 WLR 288
[7] [1994] Q.B. 302
[8] Section 182, California Penal Code,
[9] Supra note 4
No comments :
Post a Comment