Knowledge Of Victim's Pre-Existing Heart Disease Essential: Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S 304 Part II IPC
The Bench said that a single stick blow causing simple injury cannot sustain culpable homicide conviction where death resulted from cardiac arrest due to fear and anxiety.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an accused cannot be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC because the victim died following an assault, where the death resulted from a pre-existing medical condition and there is no evidence that the accused was aware of that condition at the time of inflicting the injury.
The Court found that where the deceased died of acute coronary insufficiency triggered by fear and anxiety, rather than from the physical injury itself, the requisite element of "knowledge" under Section 304 Part II remains unproved absent evidence that the accused knew the victim was suffering from a disease which made the injury likely to prove fatal.
The Court further noted that the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship or interestedness, reaffirming the settled principle that a related witness is not automatically an "interested" witness, and that where such testimony is consistent, corroborated by injuries, and withstands cross-examination without material contradiction, it constitutes reliable evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “…an inference could not have been drawn from the activities of Lal Chand that he had a heart disease to such an extent that any fear would result in his death. The accused cannot be held liable for the commission of the murder in the absence of knowledge of the medical condition of the deceased. Illustration (b) of Clause (iv) of Section 300 of IPC, provides that if the offender knows that the victim is labouring under such disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him to cause bodily injury and the victim dies in consequence of the blow, the offender is guilty of murder although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health…”.
“…But if the offender, not knowing that the victim is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not, in the ordinary course of nature, kill a person in a sound state of health, and the victim dies, the offender is not guilty of murder. Thus, the accused can be held liable for the murder only if he knew that the deceased was suffering from a disease and the blow was likely to cause his death…”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Naveen Kumar appeared for the appellants and Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General appeared for the respondents.
On September 04, 2011, a dispute arose when accused Bhagat Ram began digging a drainage trench on disputed land while the deceased, was reading a newspaper nearby. The deceased objected, following which Bhagat Ram dragged the deceased’s wife, to his courtyard and began beating her.
When family members intervened to rescue her, Bhagat Ram inflicted a stick blow on deceased's head, causing a bleeding injury and a fall. Co-accused Nirmala Devi allegedly instigated Bhagat Ram, while co-accused Sanjay Kumar assaulted other family members.
He was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead. Post-mortem examination found the cause of death to be acute coronary insufficiency arising from hypertrophic heart disease, triggered by sudden fear and anxiety resulting from the assault, rather than the physical injury itself.
The Trial Court by judgment dated November 03, 2012, convicted Bhagat Ram under Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment, and convicted Nirmala Devi and Sanjay Kumar under Section 323 IPC with fines. The convicts filed appeals before the High Court under Section 374 CrPC.
The Court rejected the defence's contention that the informant party was the aggressor entitled to a right of private defence, finding that the land was jointly owned and that the family had entered the accused's courtyard only to rescue Kanta Devi, not as aggressors.
Relying extensively on Supreme Court precedent including Laltu Ghosh v. State of W.B. (2019) 15 SCC 344 and Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 137, the Court held that related witnesses are natural witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded for want of independent corroboration where it is consistent and credible.
The appeal was partly allowed, and the conviction and sentence of Bhagat Ram under Section 304 Part II IPC were set aside, and he was instead convicted under Section 323 IPC. The convictions of Nirmala Devi and Sanjay Kumar under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC were upheld. Bhagat Ram was directed to be produced for hearing on quantum of sentence on July 13, 2026.
Cause Title: Nirmala Devi & Anr. v. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal Nos. 475 and 476 of 2012
Appearances:
Appellants: M/s Naveen Kumar and Kiran Kumar, Advocates.
Respondent: Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.