Death Due To Cardiac Arrest After Being Pushed: Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Discharge Application, Says Culpability Is Matter Of Evidence

The Kerala High Court has observed that while considering a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts are not expected to conduct a mini-trial.

It held that factual questions—such as the accused's knowledge of the deceased's pre-existing cardiac illness and the precise legal culpability of his overt acts—are matters that must be strictly determined through the appreciation of evidence during trial.

The Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court's refusal to discharge an accused charged with murder, criminal intimidation, and voluntarily causing hurt after a verbal altercation led to a woman's fatal cardiac arrest.

The Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian observed, "the question as to whether the accused knew about the deceased’s cardiac condition is also a matter of evidence. While considering an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial. At that stage, what is required to be considered is whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused."

Advocate K.S. Dhanesh Kumar appeared for the Petitioner.

Brief Facts

The petitioner was arrayed as the sole accused in a sessions case before the Sessions Court, for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that a verbal altercation ensued between the petitioner and the mother of the de facto complainant over a dispute regarding the dumping of waste into a drainage in front of the petitioner’s residence.

During the course of the said quarrel, the petitioner criminally intimidated the lady and pushed her to the ground. Consequent to the fall, she suffered a cardiac arrest which resulted in her death. The petitioner moved an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge via the impugned order. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner preferred the instant criminal revision petition before the High Court.

Contentions of the Parties

The revision petitioner contended that the essential ingredients to attract the offence of culpable homicide were completely conspicuously absent in the instant case. It was submitted that the overt acts attributed to the accused were trivial in nature, and there was no material to indicate the presence of the requisite mens rea to constitute an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was further urged that the allegation of pushing the deceased was entirely false, and even if taken at face value, the act would at best attract an offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt. To buttress this submission, reliance was placed on the post-mortem report, which prima facie indicated that the cause of death was cardiac failure.

The State contended that there were specific allegations against the petitioner for pushing the deceased during the altercation. It was further submitted that the accused possessed prior knowledge regarding the pre-existing cardiac ailment of the deceased, and therefore, the primary material on record was sufficient to proceed with the trial.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that while the post-mortem certificate recorded the cause of death as cardiac failure, it also clearly noted certain fresh ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. Evaluating Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court observed that homicide in its generic sense merely denotes the causing of death of a human being by another, and it does not automatically amount to culpable homicide unless accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge.

The Court further observed that whether the overt acts of the accused amounted to culpable homicide, and whether the accused had specific knowledge of the deceased's cardiac condition, were complex questions of fact that could only be determined upon a proper appreciation of evidence during the trial.

"Therefore, even if it is established that the death was caused by the act of the accused, an offence of culpable homicide would not be attracted automatically unless it is further established that the said act was committed with the requisite intention or knowledge. In any event, whether the act of the accused amounts to culpable homicide is a matter to be decided based on evidence at trial", the Court said.

The Court reiterated the settled position of law that while considering a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously weigh the evidence.

Since there existed sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner, the High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and accordingly dismissed the criminal revision petition.

Cause Title: Rajesh R v. State of Kerala and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026: KHC:40140]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate K.S. Dhanesh Kumar, Advocate Anjana Sanjay.

Respondents: Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Order