Involuntary Manslaughter and Michael Jackson's Death Case

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

[4] http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2610185.ece

[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

Defamation and the Suits Filed by ITC against Suhel Seth

Defamation finds itself placed under Indian Penal Code, where it has been defined as such a publication (both oral and written) which is intended to harm the reputation of a person.[1]The recent suits filed by ITC against Suhel Seth, who once retained the advertisement work of ITC.[2]Two suits one in Kolkata and other in Bangalore, each begging for Rs 100 crore, have been filed in these cities. Interestingly, these suits refer to the comments made by Seth on twitter, and some of the comments can be read as[3] –

"YC Deveshwar of ITC has had a sterling track-record of avoiding retirement at all costs...he could also be offered to the Maosits (sic) but then...."

"YC Deveshwar of ITC has just been nominated CHAIRMAN ETERNUS (sic)...forget Emeritus..." Seth has recently removed a few of his comments on Deveshwar from Twitter.”

'Yogi Devesh will teach the insider trading course at Tihar School of Business.”

Before concluding whether these comments can be considered as something which can impair the reputation of Y C Deveshwar, ITC Chairman and ITC itself, the important elements which ought to be satisfied for a defamation claim must be understood. Since it is a civil suit, conditions which are required to be satisfied in case of criminal defamation are not mandatorily being fulfilled, mens rea being one of them.[4]But again, a prima facie defamation should appear to the court.[5]

Article 19 of (1)(a) of the Constitution of India confers right on every citizen of India. At the same time, no right can be absolute and reasonable restrictions can be placed by the state, and so is with this right to freedom of speech and expression.[6]

Apparently, defamation can be categorised into libel and slander, where former requires the defamatory statement to subsist in permanent form, no such prerequisite is needed in the case of the latter. While slander is only a civil offence rather being a criminal offence in UK, no such distinction is present in India where both libel and slander are considered to be both criminal and civil offence. In the present case, statements made by Seth seem to be of permanent nature and can certainly be categorised as libel. Since, only civil suits have been filed by ITC, no requirement as regards criminal nature of defamation would be required to understand this situation. Before moving further, it is important here to know the imperative elements with regard to libel -

1. That the statement which is being made by the defendant (Seth in this case) is false. In the absence of the statement being false, plaintiff would not be able succeed in his claim.

2. It must be shown that the statement so published is static in form, and it can be both in writing and printing.

3. Thirdly, it must be shown that the statement so made is actually defamatory in nature. Now, what is defamatory is a matter of fact, and would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In general, the statement should either expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or it should tend to harm his profession or trade, or it should cause him to be avoided by his society members, neighbours to be more specific.

It shall be noted here that even if plaintiff is not directly defamed by the statement, he can have a locus standi in case he has a reason to be believe that the statements are in fact directed against him and has caused injury to his reputation.[7]And further, if the statement is made against a company, then its directors can surely move a suit against defendant.[8]

In order to prove their case substantially, ITC has to satisfy all these conditions. Since the damages so demanded seem to be considerably high in nature, succeeding in getting such an amount seems difficult. One reason why usually higher monetary claims are made in the cases related to defamation can be attributed to the fact that in such a situation, plaintiff may be able to get proportionally lesser amount which would be at least more than what he could have received had he have claimed a lesser amount.

Also, whether the statements so made would actually harm the plaintiff shall also be taken into account in these cases, and whether it would harm ITC by any means whatsoever would again be a matter of fact.

Some other recent cases as regards defamation include the recent trail against Medha Patkar, and also the case against Carvan Magazine and Siddhartha Deb by IIPM.

---

[1] Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860

[2]http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-06/news/30364142_1_itc-spokesman-itc-officials-tweets

[3] Ibid

[4] S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 at page 616

[5] Ibid

[6] Article 19(2), Constitution of India, 1950

[7] John Thomas v. K. Jagadeesan (Dr), (2001) 6 SCC 30 at page 35

[8] Ibid

Proviso to Section 437(1) of CrPC : Is Bail a matter of Right?

Bail, in non-bailable offences, is not a matter of right of the accused person. Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages the provision as regards bail in case of non-bailable offences, which may or may not be granted depending on the discretion of the court. But this provision also provides a proviso which exempts women, and empowers court to grant bail to a woman irrespective of the gravity of the crime. The recent take of CBI Court by refusing bail to Kanimozhi, Member of Parliament who is one of the accused in 2-G Scam case, on the ground that no special consideration can be given to a woman has come with differed opinions. A step on it, an appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court against the decision of CBI court on the ground that the lower court erred in classifying the term “woman” under CrPC when no such classification can be made under CrPC or the Constitution of India. No matter what will be the decision of the High Court, the proviso to Section 437 of the Indian Constitution illustrates the gender biased behaviour of the Criminal law prevailing since its inception. It would be quite interesting to keep a watch on the prospective stand of Delhi High Court in this case. Section 437 of CrPC uses the word “may”, which means it is not mandatory for the court to grant bail to the woman, who is an accused. It is merely an enabling provision which empowers the court to grant bail not only to a woman, but it should also be kept in mind that those provisions which affect fundamental rights of a person shall be given effect generally.[1]

Supreme Court, once while dealing with Section 437 of CrPC, was of the view that though this Section gives special consideration to a woman, it cannot be considered to be a mandatory provision.[2]Though once it had been held by Allahabad High Court that this proviso to Section 437 shall be exercised mandatorily,[3]but the same decision was reversed by Allahabad High Court itself stating that the provision is not mandatory in nature.[4]In the former case, High Court was of the view that the word “may” provided therein under the Code is not discretionary but mandatory in nature, while in the latter case it was of the view that is subjected to judicial discretion. Now, it will depend on the discretion of the Delhi High Court whether it will grant bail to Kanimozhi. Since it would not be mandatory for the court to provide remedy to her under this proviso, claiming bail based on this proviso will not be of much help. Though other instance may go in favour of her for e.g. the duration for which she has been in jail and the tedious behaviour of CBI by not opposing the bail plea. No doubt these facts may well go in her favour, but it would be interesting to see the reaction of the high court towards the reasoning of lower court judge.

---

[1] Gurubaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632

[2] Prahalad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T. Delhi & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 280

[3] Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. 1986 Cri LJ 365 (All.)

[4] P.K. Manglik & Ors. v. Sadhna Rani & Ors. 1989 Cri LJ 1771 ( All.)