Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court examined a rather unusual case where a hunting expedition turned fatal, raising a crucial question of law under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, when an act done without intent to kill results in death, does it amount to culpable homicide or mere negligence? Read on to understand how the Court navigated this delicate distinction and the legal reasoning behind it.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an incident in which a person went missing and was later found dead under suspicious circumstances. Investigation revealed that the accused, along with two others, had ventured into a forest with firearms to hunt wild animals. During the expedition, one of them fired at movement in the bushes, mistakenly believing it to be a wild fowl, which tragically resulted in the death of the victim. The Petitioner was subsequently arrested, and a supplementary chargesheet was filed. The present petition was filed seeking regular bail in connection with offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that he has been wrongfully implicated and that there was no intention to cause death. It was argued that the incident occurred purely by mistake while attempting to hunt, and even on the prosecution’s own showing, the act cannot be brought within the scope of Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with culpable homicide. The Petitioner maintained that, at best, the facts may constitute an offence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to death caused by negligence.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent contended that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, was directly involved in the killing of the deceased. It was further submitted that after committing the act, they attempted to destroy evidence by severing the victim’s head and burning the body and head at different locations.
Observation of the Court:
The court, upon examining the facts and materials on record, observed that a similar situation is illustrated in illustration (c) to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 100 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Emphasising the historical context, the court referred to the report of the framers of the IPC and stated that “the provisions enacted by them differs from the rule of English Law because Sir William Blackstone says that ‘if one intends to do another felony, and undesignedly kills a man, this is murder.’ However, framers did not agree with the principle of English Law and observed that if an act is innocent, the person cannot be punished because it leads to bad consequences and if a person causes death by negligence or rashness without intending to cause death, he should be liable to punishment for the offence which he was engaged in committing.”
Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that “a person shooting at another without knowing about his presence and believing him to be a wild fowl can be held liable for his negligence in omitting to take care that a person was concealing himself behind the bushes, but cannot be held liable for murder because the hunter never intended to kill a man but a wild animal.”
The Court held that the accused cannot, prima facie, be held liable for an offence punishable under Section 103 of the BNS, but would instead be liable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature. Accordingly, the court found that there was insufficient material to conclude that the accused had committed a non-bailable offence warranting further detention.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to the conditions imposed.
Case Title: Bhutto Ram V. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1933 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. Kshitij Sharma, Prashant Sharma and Shobhit Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
