Himachal Pradesh High Court: While considering an appeal against acquittal in a case relating to the death of a woman due to snake-bite, a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., held that failure to prove that treatment could have saved the snake-bite victim who was taken to a sorcerer instead, defeats prosecution for criminal negligence and therefore is not enough for conviction under Section 304-A, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court further held that the trial court had adopted a reasonable view on the evidence and therefore no interference was warranted in an appeal against acquittal.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court directs directs snake-bite compensation
Background
The prosecution case was that the victim suffered a snake bite while residing in the house of her brother-in-law (accused). Her father was informed the next morning that she had been bitten by a snake during the previous night. When he reached the house, he found her unconscious. The father tried taking the victim to the hospital, but the accused informed him that he had taken her to a sorcerer. Despite the father’s insistence, the victim was again taken to the sorcerer who stated that he had done whatever was possible. The accused then took the victim to her mother-in-law and subsequently, when she was taken to a hospital, she was declared dead. A complaint was thereafter lodged and a case under Sections 336 and 304-A IPC was investigated.
The post-mortem examination recorded snake bite as the cause of death. The accused admitted the occurrence of the snake bite but denied responsibility for the death. He stated that he was beaten, and he remained confined to bed for 15 days. A false case was made against him so that he could not file a complaint with the police. Further, he did not even produce any evidence in his defence. The trial court noted that there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police and acquitted the accused, holding that although the deceased had died due to snake bite, the act of the accused was not the proximate cause of her death. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred the present appeal.
The State contended that the accused had acted negligently in not taking the victim to a hospital despite advice from the sorcerer. It was submitted that the trial court had discarded the prosecution case based on minor discrepancies in the testimonies and had adopted an erroneous approach while appreciating the evidence. It was argued that the delay in reporting the matter was properly explained. On the other hand, the accused submitted that the snake bite and not the act of the accused was the proximate cause of the victim’s death,
Analysis
The Court relied on Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433, wherein it was observed that:
“… the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.”
The Court noted the prosecution’s assertion that the accused’s failure to take the victim to the hospital led to her death. The Court emphasised that the framers of IPC stated that an omission would be punishable when it is illegal, which means that it is in breach of some direction of law or it is of such a nature as would furnish a good ground for civil action. However, the Court observed that in the case at hand, the prosecution could not prove that the accused’s omission was in breach of some direction of law or would constitute a good ground for the civil action.
The Court rejected the submission that had the victim been taken to the hospital, she could have been saved. The Court relied on R. v. Morby, [LR] 8 QBD 571, wherein it was highlighted that the prosecution must prove that neglect had the effect of shortening life, and the mere possibility that the life could have been saved is not sufficient. The Court also referred to R. v. Broughton, (2021) 1 WLR 543, wherein it was held that the prosecution must prove that the act or omission of the accused was a significant contributory cause of death.
The Court held that the present record contained no expert opinion demonstrating that the victim’s life could have been saved by taking her to the hospital and therefore, the accused could not be convicted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The Court further noted that the healer who attended the victim had been treating snake-bite cases for nearly 30 to 40 years, regularly attended multiple such cases every week, and was famous in the locality. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses disclosed that people visited him in snake-bite cases. The Court observed that the accused could not be faulted merely for sharing the prevailing faith reposed by residents in such treatment.
The Court also noted that the accused’s economic condition was not sound and if he hesitated in taking the victim to the hospital, he could not be faulted. The Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that failure to take the victim to a doctor was the proximate cause of her death.
Also Read: SC: Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Convict on Sentence
Decision
The Court while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the acquittal and observed that no interference was required with the reasonable view taken by the trial court, even if another view was possible. The accused was further directed to furnish bail bond.
[State of H.P. v. Dev Raj, 2026 SCC OnLine HP 4831, decided on 13-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mukul Sharma, Advocate vice V.B. Verma, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
