Monday, October 30, 2023

Grounds for applicability of the doctrine of double jeopardy

 

Grounds for applicability of the doctrine of double jeopardy 

In legal terms, jeopardy refers to the danger that defendants in criminal cases suffer, such as jail time or penalties. In three situations, double jeopardy has been stated as a valid defence:

  1. First and foremost, the individual must be charged with a crime. In the General Clauses Act of 1897, the term ‘offence’ is defined. Any act or omission that is criminal under the law in force at the time.
  2. Before a court or a judicial tribunal, the investigation or proceeding must have occurred.
  3. In the prior process, the person must have been arrested and punished.
  4. The offence must be the same as the one for which he was previously convicted and sentenced.

Self-discrimination

 

Self-discrimination [Article 20(3)]

Self-discrimination is prohibited because “no person accused of any offence will be compelled to be a witness against himself,” according to the law. It is based on the maxim ‘Nemo tenetur prodere accusare seipsum,’ which says that no one is obligated to blame oneself. It relates to the admissibility of confessions made under pressure, which are not allowed to be used as evidence. Furthermore, no one will be required to make remarks against oneself that are considered self-harming or confessional statements.

Double jeopardy

 

Double jeopardy [Article 20(2)]

The doctrine of double jeopardy is a rule that states that no one should be put twice in peril for the same offence. “No individual shall be arrested and punished for the same offence more than once,” the Indian Constitution said in article 20(2). The doctrine evolved from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, however, there are differences between the United States and England. In India, the scope of protection is restricted.

Ex post facto law

 

Ex post facto law [Article 20(1)]

An ex post facto legislation is one that imposes punishments or convictions on already committed offences and increases the punishment for such acts. This is based on the Constitution of the United States of America. It also has a retrospective effect. It means when a law enforces a penalty or punishment for an act that was not subject to punishment at the time of the commission of the offence, or enforces an extra penalty to what was prescribed at the time of the commission of the offence, or when there is a change in the rule of evidence or procedure that requires conviction.

Perjury Examples

 

Examples of Perjury

There are many ways a person could perjure themselves. In its simplest form, a person commits the crime either in statements made under oath or signed documents. Here are some examples:

  • While completing a sworn affidavit during a bankruptcy court proceeding, John intentionally understates his monthly income by Rs.2,000. John knows he has underreported the income. He signs the printed document and files it with the judge's clerk.
  • Mary is a suspect facing criminal charges. Jill is sworn in and testifies in the criminal case trial. She states that her friend, Mary, was having lunch at her house when the crime occurred. Credit card receipts and mobile phone records say otherwise. The alibi claim is central to Mary's defense.
  • Frank omits the Rs.15,000 he won at a casino from his federal income tax return. It's not a mistake. Frank intends to hide his winnings. He signs and sends the return to the IRS.

In all these examples, evidence of the crime of perjury comes to light when testimony or signed statements directly conflict with verifiable information. For example, authorities may investigate John's conduct, which understated his monthly income in bankruptcy court. When his employer's payroll records show a higher income, he may face perjury charges. The state will claim he provided false information on a sworn statement.

Since witnesses and others involved in legal proceedings may unintentionally provide false testimony in good faith, prosecutors must proceed with caution. They must be able to prove the intent to deceive or mislead. For example, a witness to a robbery testifies that the suspect had green eyes and a scar on his left cheek. Yet, other evidence points to a suspect with blue eyes and a scar on his right cheek. If the witness was not trying to protect the assailant by lying about key facts, she has not committed perjury. Her hazy memory of the incident should not become the basis of a criminal offense.

Perjury

 

What Is Perjury?

To “perjure oneself" is to make false statements under oath knowingly. Or it is to sign a legal document known to be false or to contain false statements. The false statement must also be related to a material fact. That is, it can affect the course or outcome of the proceeding.

The seriousness of perjury charges derives from its attack on the truth. The foundation of the legal system depends on trust and credibility. After all, one sworn statement has the power to tip the scales of justice and alter a person's life.

Perjury qualifies as a crime against justice. Lying under oath compromises the work of an official proceeding. It challenges the authority of courts, grand juries, governing bodies, and public officials throughout government and the legal system.

Whether there is certain medical negligence or not that will be proved after taking the evidence of both sides

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/172/2023
( Date of Filing : 18 May 2023 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 19/04/2023 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/80/2023 of District Howrah)
 
1. Bikash Maity
S/o, Lt Sahadeb Maity. 8, Kailash Bose 2nd Bye Lane, P.S. & Dist- Howrah- 1.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Dr. Subhro Chatterjee
262, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S. & Dist- Howrah- 1.
2. Peoples's Medi-Treat Pvt. Ltd.
262, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S. & Dist- Howrah- 1.
3. Peoples Medical Hall
262, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S. & Dist- Howrah- 1.
4. Drs. Tribedi & Roy
93, Park Street, Calcutta- 16. A diagnostic laboratory.
5. IPGMER & SSKMH-Centre of Excellence
A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta- 20.
6. Dr. Subham Bhattacharya
A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta- 20. Hematologist Asstt. Proffessor & Visiting Consultant of IPGMER & SSKM.
7. Nabanir Hospital & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd.
37/2, Kalabagan Lane, Santragachi, Howrah- 4.
8. Narayana Superspeciality Hospital (Unit of Meridian Medical Research & Hospital Ltd.)
120/1, Andul Road, P.S.- A.J.C Bose B. Garden, P.O.- B.Garden, Dist- Howrah.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Suman Das,Abhilash Chatterjee, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
None appears
......for the Respondent
Dated : 13 Jul 2023
Final Order / Judgement

SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA,  MEMBER 

Today is fixed for  passing order.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the appellant and perused the materials on record.

The instant Appeal   is filed  within time. Let the Appeal be admitted and registered.

The instant Appeal  has been filed  under Section 41 of C.P. Act, 2019 by the Appellant/Complainant against  the   final order dated  19.04.2023 in Complaint Case being No. CC/80/2023  passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah.

Ld.  District Commission,  Howrah, has passed  the final order/judgment on 19.04.2023 which is reproduced  below:

Today the case is fixed for admission hearing.

Heard Ld.  Advocate  for  complainants. Perused the petition of complaint and copies of documents and materials on record.

It appears that in  support of complaint, complainants files copy of different photocopies of medical papers. We have carefully heard the Ld. Counsel of the  complainant and perused the materials on record it is pertinent to mention that we are of the view that in order to proceed further complainant at least has to  make out  a prima facie case. But  on that score complainant has failed to establish that prima facie  there is failure of standard medical protocol  by the concerned doctor. Alternatively it  can be said that prima facie  there is no material to proceed further with the case.

Hence,

                   The instant case cannot be proceeded further.

                   Thus, the instant case stands rejected.”

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above  order, the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) has filed the instant Appeal.

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the complainant’s wife namely, Smt.  Rita Rani Maity (since deceased) was ill on and from 16.10.2022 due to fracture of her leg and immediately the complainant started medical treatment of his wife on 16.10.2022 under Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP No. 1’)  attached to Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP  No. 2’). On 29.10.2022, the complainant’s wife was admitted in the OP No. 2  Nursing Home for operation of  her leg and she was discharged from OP No. 2 Nursing  Home after proper diagnosis on 01.11.2022 and thereafter,  the OP No. 1 being the doctor had prescribed medicine for the patient. Thereafter, on 16.11.2022, the complainant’s wife (since deceased) was again medically treated by OP No. 1 doctor who prescribed some new medicines including Tablet Frolitrax-5 and advised  the wife of the complainant to take the said medicine twice a day  for three months. After taking the said medicine, the physical condition of the complainant’s wife  was started to deteriorate day by day and the  wife of the complainant was again  admitted in the OP No. 2  Nursing Home in the  evening of 03.12.2022 but the condition of the complainant’s wife was deteriorated day by day. Hence, the complainant discharged  his wife on 08.12.2022  form the OP No. 2 Nursing Home   and  the complainant’s wife was admitted in the SSKM Hospital/Respondent No. 5 i.e., OP No. 5 of the original complaint case, for better treatment. Thereafter, the complainant’s wife was shifted from  Bed No. 48 to Bed No. F-19 in Calcutta Police Hospital which  is part of OP No.  5/Respondent No. 5 for better treatment  and OP No. 5 detected the Drug  (Methotrexate) induced Aplastic Anaemia of the complainant’s wife now deceased. As per advice of Respondent No. 5/OP No. 5 bone marrow test was done by Respondent No. 4/OP No. 4 and the report was received on 12.12.2022. Proper diagnosis was done OP No. 5  on 22.12.2022 and it was found in details about the side effects of the said medicine Tab-Fortitrax-5 for which the physical condition of the complainant’s wife had been deteriorating day by day and  bleeding  from the nose of the patient started on and from 16.11.2022. Subsequently, the complainant’s wife was admitted in the OP No. 7/Respondent No. 7 Hospital for better  treatment and  blood transfusion  and some costly injection were prescribed. The  complainant’s wife was discharged from OP No. 7 Hospital and thereafter, the patient  had been admitted in the OP No. 8/Respondent No. 8 Hospital in a precarious condition  but unfortunately the said patient died on 04.03.2023 in the OP No.8/Respondent No. 8 Hospital at a pre-mature  age of 52 years.

Hence, the complainant has filed a complaint  petition before the Ld. District Commission,  Howrah, praying  for direction upon OPs/Respondent s No. 1, 2 & 3 to pay sum of Rs.15,00,000/-  spent  for the treatment of deceased wife of the complainant along with compensation and cost.

The Ld. DCDRC dismissed the Complaint Case on the  date of Admission Hearing observing that there  is no prima facie case.

Ld. Advocate for the  complainant has submitted before this Commission that from the  document issued by  Respondent No. 5/OP No. 5 it  is clear that the diagnosis was “Drug (Methetrexate) induced ‘Aplastic Anaemia’ (Running Page 20 of the Memo of Appeal.  The Ld. Advocate for has further submitted that ‘The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956’ the  profession conduct has been mentioned in  Section  20A. Section 20A reproduced as under:

          PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

          20.A

  1. The Council may prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette and a code of ethics for medical practitioners.
  2. Regulations made by the Council under  sub-Section (1) may specify which violations thereof shall  constitute infamous conduct in any professional respect, that is to say, professional  misconduct, and such provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force.

Upon  careful perusal of the record we think that there is obviously a prima facie case of medical negligence since the instant case alleges medical negligence due to over doze of medicine.

Negligence is  simply the failure to exercise  due care. The three ingredients  of medical  negligence are as follows: 

  1.  The  doctor  owes a duty of care to the patient.
  2.  The doctor  has  breached the due care. 
  3. The  patient has suffered and injured  due to this breach.

The duty owed by a doctor  towards his patient, is to “bring to his task a reasonable degree of scale and knowledge” and to exercise “a reasonable degree of care”. The definition of “Medical Negligence”  has remained unchanged over the time – Failure to exercise reasonable skill as per the general standards and the prevalent situation is termed as “Medical Negligence”.

Medical negligence is the tort  which takes cognizance of the following:

  1. A legal duty either express or implied to treat patient must exist
  2. Breach of such legal duty, if any, in comparison to the expected conduct and performance of the people from the same profession.
  3. Presence   of damage caused by such  breach which must result in injury which needs to be compensated.

In the  instant  case, the complainant has alleged that there is wrong doze of the  Tablets Folitrax-5 prescribed by OP No. 1 doctor who is attached to OP No. 2 Nursing Home.

From the document annexed with the petition of complaint issued by OP No. 5/Respondent No. 5 it appears  that the final diagnosis was drug (Methotrexate) induced Aplastic Anaemia. Therefore,  we  are of the view that there is certainly a prima facie case of medical negligence. We are astonishing that on the date of  admission  hearing how the Ld. District Commission  rejected the complaint case on the ground that  the complainant has failed to   establish a prima facie case.

Whether there is certain medical negligence or not that will be proved after taking the evidence of both  sides. 

From the four corners of the complaint petition, it cannot be said that  there is no prima facie  case, therefore, the Ld. District Commission has erred in taking  the view that there is no prima facie case.

As a result,  the order dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. District Commission, Howrah,  is hereby set aside.

Let the Complaint case be admitted and registered.

Ld. District  Commission is requested to restore the case in its original file and number and to proceed with the Complaint Case in accordance with  law.

The Ld. DCDRC, Howrah is further requested to dispose of the case preferably  within 6 (six) months from the date of  appearance of the complainant.

Fix 14.08.2023 for appearance of the complainant before the Ld. District Commission, Howrah for receiving further direction.

Consequently,  the instant Appeal be and the same is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy  of this order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Howrah at once.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH]
MEMBER