HC Rules: Expert Treatment Not Grounds for Acquittal in IPC Offence

In a recent judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition seeking regular bail in a case involving serious offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 (murder). The court emphasized that the mere fact that immediate expert treatment could have saved the deceased’s life does not absolve the accused of culpability.

The case stemmed from an incident where an altercation between the accused and the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries to the latter. Despite arguments from the petitioner’s counsel asserting innocence and claiming false implication, the court found direct evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly used a brick to cause harm to the deceased, leading to his untimely demise.

One of the key contentions raised by the petitioner was the delay in concluding the trial and the lack of witnesses supporting the prosecution’s case. However, the court observed that the absence of witnesses apart from the informant did not warrant the petitioner’s release on bail.

A significant aspect of the court’s ruling pertained to the petitioner’s argument regarding the deceased’s potential survival with immediate medical attention. The petitioner contended that had proper medical treatment been administered promptly, the deceased could have survived. Nonetheless, the court invoked Explanation-2 to Section 299 of the IPC, emphasizing that this factor alone cannot exonerate the accused.

The court’s decision underscores the gravity of the offence and the need for strict adherence to legal principles in bail matters. Despite the petitioner’s assertions and the absence of corroborating witnesses, the court upheld the seriousness of the charges, ultimately denying bail.

In conclusion, the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that the potential for survival with expert medical treatment does not negate the accused’s culpability in cases involving serious criminal offences. The decision reaffirms the court’s commitment to upholding justice and ensuring accountability in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Deepak Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case No.: Cr. MP (M) No. 2936 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!