# JUGGANKHAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1965] 1 S.C.R. 14
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-08-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1962
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/juggankhan-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-3297
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

.JUGGANKHAN
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
August 10, 1964
lK. SUBBA RAO AND S. M. Sllll JI.)
CrimlMJ Law-Pouonoiu medicine-Prescription without
stud1~
possible efiect-lf rash and negligent act-Indian Penal Code, 1860
(45 of 1860) s. 304A.
Lured by a pamphlet advertising that, among other things, the a~
lant, a registered Homoeopathic medical practitioner, treated Naru (Guinea
Worm), one D went to the clinic of the appellant.
The appellant cumined D and administered 24 drops of suamonium and a leaf of dhatura.
After taking the medicine D started feeling restless "lid ill, varlow
antidOtes were given but she was not relieved.
She vomited twiC<I but
the vomits were not preserved and sent for eumination.
Ultimately in
the evening she died. The autopsy surgeon reported that the cause of
the death could be ascertained only after the result of the chemical analysia was received and he sent to the chemical examiner the stomach with
its contents and pieceo of liver, spleen and kidney. The Chemical Examiner reported that no poison could be detected in any of these items.
The appellant's contention that it has not been proved that death rCllu1ted
from dhatura poisoning was negatived by both courts below, and die
High Court confirmed his conviction under s. 302, Indian Penal Code. On
appeal by special leave
HELD : (i) On the facts the conclusion of the courta below that dciath
was the.result of Dhatura poison could not be '"id lo be erroneow. [160]
(ii) The appellant was guilty under s. 304A, Indian Penal Code. On
the facts, s. 299, Indian Penal Code, did not ap;ily and the appellant -
be acquitted of the charge under s. 302, Indian Penal Code. [I 9C]
It seems that the appellant _prescribed the medicine without thorouPJy
studying what would be the effect of giving 24 drops of stramonium a
a leaf of dhqtura.
It is a rash and negligent act to prescribe poiaoaoos
medicines without studying their possible efl'ecL [I SH]
John Oni A.kerele v. The King A.I.R. 1943 P.C. 72, distinpiilhed.
C!tIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
171 of 1962.
A
B
c
D
E
F
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 10, t 962 of the Madhya Prad~ High Court Indore Bench
G
at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 344 • oi 1961.
S. Mohan Kumaramanga/am, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. a.,,
D. P. Singh and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellant.
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent

## Text

.JUGGANKHAN
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
August 10, 1964
lK. SUBBA RAO AND S. M. Sllll JI.)
CrimlMJ Law-Pouonoiu medicine-Prescription without
stud1~
possible efiect-lf rash and negligent act-Indian Penal Code, 1860
(45 of 1860) s. 304A.
Lured by a pamphlet advertising that, among other things, the a~
lant, a registered Homoeopathic medical practitioner, treated Naru (Guinea
Worm), one D went to the clinic of the appellant.
The appellant cumined D and administered 24 drops of suamonium and a leaf of dhatura.
After taking the medicine D started feeling restless "lid ill, varlow
antidOtes were given but she was not relieved.
She vomited twiC<I but
the vomits were not preserved and sent for eumination.
Ultimately in
the evening she died. The autopsy surgeon reported that the cause of
the death could be ascertained only after the result of the chemical analysia was received and he sent to the chemical examiner the stomach with
its contents and pieceo of liver, spleen and kidney. The Chemical Examiner reported that no poison could be detected in any of these items.
The appellant's contention that it has not been proved that death rCllu1ted
from dhatura poisoning was negatived by both courts below, and die
High Court confirmed his conviction under s. 302, Indian Penal Code. On
appeal by special leave
HELD : (i) On the facts the conclusion of the courta below that dciath
was the.result of Dhatura poison could not be '"id lo be erroneow. [160]
(ii) The appellant was guilty under s. 304A, Indian Penal Code. On
the facts, s. 299, Indian Penal Code, did not ap;ily and the appellant -
be acquitted of the charge under s. 302, Indian Penal Code. [I 9C]
It seems that the appellant _prescribed the medicine without thorouPJy
studying what would be the effect of giving 24 drops of stramonium a
a leaf of dhqtura.
It is a rash and negligent act to prescribe poiaoaoos
medicines without studying their possible efl'ecL [I SH]
John Oni A.kerele v. The King A.I.R. 1943 P.C. 72, distinpiilhed.
C!tIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
171 of 1962.
A
B
c
D
E
F
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 10, t 962 of the Madhya Prad~ High Court Indore Bench
G
at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 344 • oi 1961.
S. Mohan Kumaramanga/am, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. a.,,
D. P. Singh and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellant.
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Slbl J. This
is an appeal
by special leave directed
.against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh eonH
•
•
'
JUGGAN.KHAN V. STATE (Sikri /.)
15
A finning the conviction and sentence of the appellant under s.
302, I.P.C.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, which has been accepted both by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, is as follows.
·The appellant is a registered Homoeopathic medical practitioner
B under Madhya Pradesh Homoeopathic and Bi<rchemic Practitioners Act (Madhya Pradesh Act 26 of 1951).
In about May 1960, he started residing and practising at
Akodiya' Mandi.
He issued a pamphlet advertising that, among
other things, he treated Naru (guinea wonn). Lurlld by this,
Smt. Deobi, aged about 20 years, who had been suffering from
C
guinea wonn for six weeks, accompanied by her uncle Chisaji
(P.W. 3), mother Daryaobai _(P.W. 4) and aunt Guiab
Bai
(P. W. 6) went to the clinic of the appellant on May 30, 1961,
at about 8 a.m. She was examined by the appellant and administered 24 drops of mother pncture stramonium and a leaf of
D
dhatura.
After taking this medicine she started feeling restleas
and ill; various antidotes were given but she was not relieved.
She vomited twice but the vomits were not preserved and sent
for examination to the chemiCal examiner.
Ultimately at aboot
5 p.m. she died.
Dr. Patodia (P.W. 7) perfonned the autopsy .on May 31,
E
1961, and reported that the cause of death could be ascertained
only after the result of chemical analysis. is received.
He sent to
the chemical examiner the stomach with its contents and· pieces
of liver, spleen and kidney.
The chemical examiner, however,
reported that no poison could be detected in any of these items.
This is seized by the learned coun8el for the appellant and he has
F urged that it :llllS _not been proved that death resulted from Dhatura
poisoning.
But both the courts below have found against him.
He further urges that what was administered was not a fatal dose
1111d he has seriously challenged the calculations made by the
learned Sessions Judge of the contents of poison in the leaf alleged
· to have been given to the deceased.
He has also challenged the
G eoncurrent findings of the courts below tbat a dhatura leaf and
24 drops of mother tincture of stramonium was administered flO
the .deceased.
His final contention is that &n 'Ille facts found it
was 11ot a case of murder under s. 302; I.P.C.,. but of an offence
under s. 304A, LP.C.
H
We have looked into the evidence but .we are. unable to
say that the concurrent finding of the courts. below that 24 drops
.of stramonium and a leaf of dhatura were administered is mani-
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(I 965J I S.C.R.
footly wrong.
They have relied on the
evidence of Chisaji,
A
dcceased's unclt!, Pl4, a register of patients maintained by the
_appellant, PIO, the prescription written by the appellant, and the
evidence of Shyam Swaroop Mishra, P. W. 14, who recognized the
handwriting of the appellant.
We think they were right in relying
on the above evidence.
We are also of the opinion that the courts below were right
in concluding that death resulted from poisoning.
It is
true
that Dr. Patodia could not say what poison caused her death.
B
But he_ could say that death was due to something that was an
irritant, and it could be due to dhatura or belladonna or any
other poison.
The deceased, according to Chisaji, P.W. 3, was c
a healthy woman, and had not taken any other medicine before
arriving at the clinic.
She was at the clinic from 9 a.m. till she
died.
The only medicine she took, apart from
antidotes, was
what was administered, i.e., 24 drops of stramonium and
a
dhatura leaf.
She started feeling
restless and
ill soon after
taking these things.
On these facts the conclusion of the courts
D
below that death was the result of dhat11ra poison cannot
be
<aid to be erroneous.
The only question that remains is about the nature of the
offence committed by the appellant.
Should he be convicted
under s. 302 or s. 304A. LP.C?
In our opinion, the appellant
E
is liable to be convicted under s. 304A and not s. 302, l.P.C.
Dr. Choudhary, P.W. 17, a registered medical practitioner,
in the course of his evidence, stated:
"In the opinion of Dr. Modi, the writer of Medical Jurisprudence, a dose of 20 to 20! gr~ios of dhatura is faial
F
and according to Dr. Taylor about 16 grains of it is a
fatal dose.
Therefore, I can say that if a fresh leaf of
dhatura of 6 inches length and 4 inches breadth along
with
24 drops of stramonium mother tincture of
Homoeopathic preparation is given to any patient then
the joint effect of both may be fatal and if it is kept in ·G
mind that the patient is allergic and idiosyncratic
for
stramonium then such a dose mtLst be fatal."
Th:s is relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to determine what
v.ould he the fatal dose.
We have however looked up Modi's
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
(14th
Edition)
and
Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurispmdence (11th
Edition) but they do not quite say what Dr. Choudhary
had
assijmcd.
Modi writes at p. 713 thu' :
H
••
I
. '
A
..
B
JUGGANKHAN V. STATE (Sikri /.)
17
"Fatal Dose-Uncertain. Four
datura fruits pounded:
. and mixed with flour were given to six men, four of
whom died.
A ripe fruit weighs, on an average;
about 2 drachms, and contains
the
seeds which
weigh about . It drachms.
()ne
hundred
dried
datura seeds weigh 20 to 20t grains.
A decoc'
tion of 125 seeds of datura stramonium has proved
fatal to a woman."
According to Taylor (p. 551, .Vol. In :
~
c
"Toxkity and Fatal Dose.
The active principle, a mixture of hyoscine, atropine and hyoscyamine, is extremely toxic, and as the plant contains
approxi-
•
D
E
F
mately t to I per cent of alkaloids, it must be considered cixtremely dangerous. The seeds are highly
poisonous, inasmuch as they contain a larger proportion of alkaloids than other parts of the plant.
Death may take place although the whole of the
seeds are ejected.
A child of 2 swallowed about 100 seeds of stramonium weighing 16 grains.
The usual symptoms
were manifested in an hour, and the child died in
24 hours although twenty seeds had been ejected by
vomiting and eighty by purging.
Sufficient
alkaloid to destroy life had been
absorbed
from the
entire seeds and carried into the blood.
In a case whi~b became the subject of a trial at
Osnabrock, a wo1t1an administered to her mother a
decoction of the bruised seeds ·of the thorn-apple, of
which it was supposed there were about 125.
She
very soon became delirious, threw her arms
about
and spoke incoherently; she died in 7 hours."
Dr. Patodia (P.W. 7) could not definitely say what dose of
tincture stramonium should be suflic~ntly fatal to life.
But be
G further opined that half an ounce of tincture stramonium. which
to; in sufficient e.xc~ss of the normal medicinal dose <which he put
<it 10 lo 30 drops) will be sufficient to cause death.
II
On this material we cannot say that it has been cstablisbed
that what the appellant prescribed was necessarily a fatal dose.
Further. the finding of the learned Se&sions Judge that the le;if
weighed 40 grains and the poison content would be I:. grains
does not proceed on any sound• basis.
Chisaji described
the
leaf as a big one but it was green and fresh.
Laxminarayan.
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1965) l S.C.R.
Vaidya, P. W. 13, gave the dimensions of the biggest leaf as
A
having a length of 7 inches and breadth of 3! inches grown on
the land having application of manure.
Dr. Choudhary, P.W.
17, said that "on the basis of hypothesis if a fresh leaf of
dhatura is 6 inches in length and 4 inches in breadth and is 40
grains in weight, it wouid contain 27 grains moisture and 13
grains of solid stramonium, i.e. poison."
We think that this · B
hypothetical evidence should not have been relied upon to determine tho content of solid stramonium in the' leaf alfoged
to
have been
administered to
the
deceased.
It follows
from this that poisonous contents of the leaf have not been satisfactorily established and if this is so, the prosecution has failed
C
to prove that the dose gfven to the· deceased was necessarily fatal.
Further, Dr. Choudhary stated that it had not come to his notice
that in any of the Homoeopathic systems of medicine stramopium
mother tincture or stramonium in potenised fonn or a green 'leaf
of dhatura is not given: for treatment of guinea-wonn. According to Dr. R. K. Singh, P.\V. 16, mother tincture stramonium can
D
be given for removing foreign bodies, though it is not specifically '
mentioned in Muteria Medica of Homoeopathy that it. can be
used for treatment of guinea-wonn.
B~ t it will be remembered
that in this system treatment is by symptoms.
On these facts, it appears to us that s. 299, I.P.C., does not
apply.
It cannot be held that the appellant administered
the. E
stramonium drops and the dhatura leaf with the knowledge that
he was likely by such an act to cause the death of the deceased.
Accordingly, we hold that the appellant must be acquitted of the
charge under s. 302.
TI1e appellant was charged in the alternative under s. 304A.
F
The learned counsel for the appellant urges that the ingredients
of s. 304A have not been established inasmuch as it was not a
rash or negligent act.
We are unable to accept this contention.
Strarnonium and a dhalura leaf are poisonous.
The appellant
was registered as a Homoeopath, and in Homoeopathy a dhatura
leaf is never administered as such.
This much· he admits himG
self.
According to the evidence on the record, in no system of
'llled.icine, except perhaps in the Ayurvedic system, the dhalura
leaf is given as cure foc guinea wonns.
It seems that the appellant prescribed tho medicine without thoroughly studying what
.would be the effect of giving 24 drops of stramonium and a leaf
. of·dhatura.
It is a rash and negligent act to prescribe poisonous
medicim:s without studying their probable effect.
The learned
counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the case of
..
·,
..
'
...
-- ,,
.JUGGANKHAN v. STATB (Sikri /,)
A John. Oni Akerele v. The King(') a
decision of the Privy
Council in an appeal from West Africa. But this decision is
wholly distinguishable.
The doctor in that
case was a duly
qualified
medical .practitioner and had given an injection ot ·
Sobita, which consists of sodium bismuth tartrate. It was alleged
that the doctor had given a dose stronger than the proper ,dose.
B On the facts, their Lordships came to the conclusion that ·cri-
.minal negligence had not been proved. It is true,. as observed
by their Lordships, that care should be taken before imputing
criminal negligence to a professional man acting in the course of
his. profession, but even taking this care we have no doubt that
the appellant was guilty of a rash and negligent act. AcccirdC
ingly, we hold that he is guilty under s. 304A, l.P.C.
In the result, "the appellant's conviction under s. 302, I.P.C.,
is set aside and he is ccinvicted under s. 304A and sentenced to
2 years' · rigorous imprisonment.
Conviction altered .
---------
(I) A.l.R. 1943 P.C. 12.