HP High Court upholds acquittal of man booked for taking snakebite victim to sorcerer instead of hospital

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that an individual cannot be held criminally liable for causing death by negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) simply for failing to provide immediate medical treatment unless that omission breaks a specific directive of law.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla upheld the acquittal of a man who took his sister-in-law to a local sorcerer instead of a hospital after she was bitten by a snake.

The woman eventually died leading to registration of case against the accused.

The Court noted that there was no expert opinion to substantiate the claim that the victim's life could have been saved by taking her to the hospital.

"There is no expert opinion that Jyoti’s life could have been saved by taking her to the hospital; hence, the accused cannot be convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC," the Court ruled.

The case dates back to May 2007. The victim, Jyoti Bala, was bitten by a snake at night while staying at the house of her brother-in-law, Dev Raj (the respondent).

Instead of rushing her to the hospital, Dev Raj took her to Buta Ram, a local occult practitioner who was popular in the area for treating snakebites. The sorcerer did not find any bite mark and advised them to head to a hospital.

However, Dev Raj took the victim back home first, and then to another relative's house. By the time she was finally taken to a medical facility, she was declared dead.

The police subsequently charged Dev Raj under Section 304A of the IPC (causing death by negligence).

A Kangra trial court acquitted him in 2014, finding that the snakebite, and not the delay, was the proximate cause of death.

Aggrieved, the State government appealed to the High Court.

The High Court noted that for a conviction under Section 304A IPC, the accused's negligence must be the direct and proximate cause of death. In this case, the post-mortem report unequivocally stated that the cause of death was the snakebite.

The medical expert never testified that the victim's life would have definitely been saved had she been brought to the hospital sooner.

Citing the English ruling in Queen vs Morby, Justice Kainthla reiterated that criminal law requires affirmative proof that neglect shortened a life.

A mere possibility or a "might have been" scenario where medical aid could have been useful is legally insufficient to sustain a homicide conviction.

The Court also factored in the stark socio-economic realities of the case. Dev Raj was a financially struggling hairdresser living in a mud (kaccha) house.

Further, the sorcerer testified that he handled 5 to 10 snakebite cases a week and was widely trusted by the villagers. Given the family's lack of education and poverty, the Court noted they could not be legally faulted for reposing faith in a locally popular healer or hesitating over potential hospital costs.

Hence, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal.

Deputy Advocate General Ajit Sharma appeared for the State.

Advocates Mukul Sharma and VB Verma appeared for the accused.

[Read Judgment]