Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in 2007 Snakebite Death Case, Says Delay in Hospital Care Did Not Prove Negligence

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of Dev Raj, who was prosecuted after his sister-in-law, Jyoti Bala, died following a snakebite in May 2007. The State alleged that instead of taking her to a hospital immediately, Dev Raj chose to seek treatment from a traditional healer named Buta Ram, resulting in a fatal delay.

However, dismissing the State's appeal against the trial court's acquittal, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove two key elements required for a conviction under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It could not establish that Dev Raj had a legally enforceable duty to take Jyoti Bala directly to a hospital, nor could it prove that the delay in medical treatment was the direct cause of her death.

The case had earlier been decided by a trial court in Kangra, which acquitted Dev Raj in 2014, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the delay in seeking medical treatment caused Jyoti Bala's death. The State challenged that acquittal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which has now affirmed the trial court's findings.

Also see: Snake Bite First Aid: What To Do Immediately After A Snake Bite

According to the prosecution, Jyoti Bala was bitten by a snake on May 15, 2007, while she was staying at the home of her brother-in-law, Dev Raj, in Himachal Pradesh.

Instead of taking her to a hospital, Dev Raj allegedly took her to a local traditional healer, referred to during the trial as PW5, believing he could treat snakebite victims.

The prosecution further alleged that the following morning, Jyoti Bala's father arrived and found her unconscious. He insisted that she be taken to a hospital, but by the time she was eventually brought to a medical facility, doctors declared her dead.

The central question before the High Court was whether Dev Raj's decision not to take Jyoti Bala directly to a hospital amounted to criminal negligence.

The court explained that criminal liability based on an omission arises only when that omission is legally "illegal." Simply failing to act does not automatically amount to a criminal offense unless there is a legally recognized duty requiring a person to act.

Since the prosecution could not establish that Dev Raj was under a specific legal obligation to immediately shift Jyoti Bala to a hospital, the court held that one of the essential ingredients required under Section 304A IPC had not been proved.

The High Court also found that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the delayed hospitalization and Jyoti Bala's death.

The Court noted that the prosecution's medical evidence did not establish that prompt hospital treatment would probably have prevented her death. It emphasized that criminal liability cannot rest on speculation or the possibility that earlier treatment might have changed the outcome.

In the absence of evidence proving that the delay directly caused the death, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's conclusion that the snakebite itself remained the proximate cause of Jyoti Bala's death.

Also see: Madhya Pradesh Snake-Bite Scam: 47 “Dead” People Claimed Dead 280 Times

The High Court also looked at the circumstances in which the incident occurred. Evidence showed that the traditional healer was well known in the area for treating snakebite victims and regularly saw several such cases each week.

The Court noted that turning to traditional healers after a snakebite was a common practice in the locality, and considered this while assessing Dev Raj's actions.

The judgment also noted that Dev Raj worked as a hairdresser and lived in a kaccha (mud) house, providing context about his background and circumstances. However, the Court made it clear that these factors were not the reason for his acquittal.

The decision ultimately rested on the prosecution's failure to prove the legal ingredients of criminal negligence under Section 304A IPC.

While dismissing the State's appeal, the High Court also reiterated the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal.

Finding that the Kangra trial court had taken a plausible view of the evidence, the High Court declined to interfere and upheld Dev Raj's acquittal.

(Rh/Rh/MSM)