Facts of the Case
A is a qualified surgeon attending to a seriously ill patient.
Upon examining the patient, A, acting in good faith, communicated his honest medical opinion that the patient was in a critical condition and “cannot live”.
Hearing this, the patient suffered a severe emotional shock, which accelerated his death.
The issue is whether A, by giving such information, caused the death and whether he can be held criminally liable.
Issues in the Case
- Whether A’s communication of medical opinion amounts to an offence causing death under IPC?
- Whether the death of the patient due to shock is attributable to A’s statement?
- Whether A’s act is protected under the general exceptions of the IPC, especially Section 88 (Act done in good faith for benefit without consent) or Section 93 (Communication made in good faith)?
- Whether mens rea (criminal intention) exists in A’s conduct?
Legal Principles Applicable
A. Section 299 & 300 IPC — Culpable Homicide / Murder
To hold A liable, prosecution must prove:
- Intention to cause death, or
- Knowledge that his act is likely to cause death.
In this case:
- A neither intended death,
- Nor could he foresee that giving a medical opinion would cause death by shock.
Therefore, Sections 299/300 do not apply.
B. Section 88 IPC — Act done in Good Faith for a Person’s Benefit
This section provides protection when:
- An act is done in good faith,
- For the benefit of a person,
- Without intention to cause harm.
A, as a surgeon, communicated medical facts believing it was necessary for the patient’s understanding and treatment.
Thus, A is protected under Section 88 IPC.
C. Section 93 IPC — Communication Made in Good Faith
This is the most applicable provision.
It states:
- No offence is committed if a person,
- Makes a communication in good faith,
- For the benefit of the person to whom it is made,
- Even if the communication causes harm.
Illustration to Section 93 specifically covers medical practitioners informing patients of their medical condition, even if the truth causes shock or distress.
Thus, A’s act is expressly protected.
D. Requirement of Mens Rea (Criminal Intention)
Criminal liability requires:
- Intention,
- Knowledge, or
- Negligence.
A had none:
- He gave an honest professional opinion,
- With no malice, carelessness, or intention to harm.
Hence, no criminal mens rea.
E. Good Faith Under IPC (Section 52 IPC)
“Good faith” means due care and attention.
As a medical professional acting in the course of duty, A’s communication satisfies this requirement.
Possible Judgement
Finding
A did not commit any offence under the Indian Penal Code.
Reasoning
- The communication was made in good faith, as part of professional duty.
- Section 93 IPC clearly exempts a person who makes a communication in good faith for another’s benefit, even if harm ensues.
- No criminal intention (mens rea) was present.
- The patient’s death resulted from emotional shock, not from any wrongful act by A.
- Medical professionals must often deliver critical information; punishing such communication would be unreasonable and contrary to public interest.
About lawgnan
To understand complex IPC offences such as robbery, dacoity, use of deadly weapons, criminal conspiracy, and common intention, visit Lawgana.in for clear and reliable legal explanations. Our platform offers structured notes, case-based reasoning, and exam-friendly content perfect for law students, judiciary aspirants, and legal researchers. Whether preparing for semester exams or developing in-depth conceptual clarity, Lawgana.in provides simplified, accurate, and high-quality legal material. Explore more IPC case studies, offence classifications, punishment analyses, and practical illustrations to strengthen your legal foundation. Visit Lawgana.in today to enhance your legal knowledge effectively and confidently.
