Prosecution Must Prove Action Of Burying Dead Animal Was With Intention To Spread Infectious Disease To Attract Offence U/s.270 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 270 of the IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma held, “Though prosecution attempted to argue that by burying dead animal near Chabutra, which was allegedly raised to offer water to the ancestors of complainant, accused attempted to hurt the religious faith of the complainant but such action if any, will not make accused liable for being charged under Section 270 of IPC. As has been observed, herein above, to bring offence of accused under the ambit of Section 270 of IPC, prosecution has to prove that action of burying dead animal was with the intention and knowledge to spread infectious disease, dangerous to life.”

“It has come in the evidence that when PW-5 complainant Padam Dutt visited the spot, he saw that pit was well covered with fresh earth, and leaves and bushes were lying over the same, which itself suggests that accused had taken appropriate steps to ensure that no damage is caused to the carcass by animals, who otherwise after having noticed foul smell could make an attempt to dig the carcass from the pit. It is quite apparent from the evidence adduced on record by prosecution that it miserably failed to prove any malignant act on the part of the accused, which is likely to spread infectious disease dangerous to lives of residents in the vicinity”, it added.

Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol represented the Appellant, while Advocate Ajay Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 2009, when the complainant lodged a complaint stating that they had erected Nallu and Chabutra (raised platform) for offering water to their ancestors on their land. The Complainant stated the Pradhan Gram Panchayat telephonically informed him that he saw the accused burying something just behind the aforesaid platform. The Complainant, having noticed leaves spread over the fresh dug-earth, went to meet the accused. The accused apprised the complainant that he had buried the dead body of his cow behind the said platform after digging a pit. The Complainant alleged that the accused maliciously buried a dead cow in their land, knowingly or having reasons to believe that it is likely to cause an infectious disease, which would be dangerous to life. On the basis of the complaint, the police lodged an FIR and conducted an investigation. The accused was charged under Sections 270 & 447 of the IPC.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 270 of the IPC but convicted him under Section 447 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The accused preferred an appeal. The matter with respect to the offence under Section 447 IPC stood compounded. The appeal before the High Court was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused under Section 270 of the IPC.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that as per Section 270 of the IPC, if an accused malignantly does any act, which he knows or has reason to believe that it may spread infection of any disease, dangerous to life, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a period prescribed in the aforesaid Section.

The Bench noted that it was not the case of the prosecution that there is no practice of burying or burning dead animals in the locality. It was also not the case of the prosecution that the accused buried his dead cow near a water source, as a result of which, the water was contaminated. The prosecution had also not claimed that a foul smell was reported by any of the residents.

The Bench noticed that as pert the prosecution case, the factum, about the burial of a dead cow in the fields of the complainant, came to the notice of the complainant upon a telephonic call given by the Pradhan, who nowhere stated that the accused, malignantly, with intention or knowledge to spread infection, buried his cow in the field of the complainant. The Bench further took note of the fact that the platform in question was claimed to be constructed for offering water to the ancestors of the complainant, but the complainant nowhere stated that near the aforesaid platform, there was any water source.

The Bench concurred with the submission of the Additional Advocate General that the prosecution was able to prove the factum of the burial of dead cow by the accused in the open field owned and possessed by the complainant, but such fact alone could not be said to be sufficient to conclude the guilt of the accused under Section 270 of IPC. “None of the prosecution witness, as have been discussed above, stated anything with regard to the knowledge and intention of the accused. Complainant though alleged that accused trespassed upon his land and without his permission buried his dead cow, but he nowhere stated that on account of aforesaid act of accused, complaint, if any, was ever received by him from the residents of the area with regard to emission of foul smell or outbreak of any disease, which is otherwise mandatory /essential for invocation of Section 270 of IPC”, it added.

Thus, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove any malignant act on the part of the accused, which was likely to spread an infectious disease dangerous to the lives of residents in the vicinity, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gaurav Sharma (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:5566)

Appearance

Appellant: Additional Advocate Generals Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Deputy Advocates Generals Ravi Chauhan, Anish Banstu

Respondent: Advocate Ajay Sharma

Click here to read/download Order