HP High Court Distinguishes Murder from Negligence in Hunting Accident Case Under BNS

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – In a significant ruling that explores the nuances of criminal intent under the new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a fatal shooting incident, asserting that a death resulting from a mistaken belief during a hunt constitutes negligence, not murder.

The decision, delivered by Justice Rakesh Kainthla in the case of Sandeep Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh , clarifies the judicial interpretation of homicide offences under the BNS, particularly the distinction between Section 103 (Murder) and Section 106 (Causing death by negligence). The court's analysis provides crucial early guidance on applying the new penal code to complex factual scenarios involving the absence of mens rea .

Case Background: A Hunting Trip Gone Tragically Wrong

The matter came before the High Court via a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Sandeep Kumar, who sought regular bail. He was charged under Sections 103 (Murder) and 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence), read with Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Additionally, charges were framed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for the possession and use of illegal arms.

The case originated in January 2025, when Som Dutt was reported missing. The subsequent police investigation revealed that the deceased, along with the petitioner Sandeep Kumar and another individual, Bhutto Ram, had ventured into a forest armed with guns. The investigation took a grim turn with the discovery of a partially burnt and decapitated body in the jungle, later identified as Som Dutt. A post-mortem examination concluded that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from multiple gunshot wounds.

According to the prosecution's own narrative, the deceased had first entered the jungle, and the petitioner and his companion followed in search of wild animals. The petitioner argued his innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated and that the shooting was purely accidental. He also contended that the Arms Act provisions were inapplicable as he possessed a valid gun license.

The Court's Analysis: Intent is the Decisive Factor

The cornerstone of the High Court's decision was the critical element of criminal intent. Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that even the prosecution's case admitted that the co-accused fired the weapon under the mistaken belief that they were shooting at a wild animal. This crucial concession shaped the court's legal interpretation.

Justice Kainthla drew a direct parallel between the facts of the case and the legal principles enshrined in both the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the new BNS. The court specifically noted that the scenario mirrors illustration (c) to Section 299 of the IPC, which corresponds to the principles within Section 100 of the BNS. This illustration describes a situation where a person, shooting at a fowl with the intent to kill it, inadvertently kills a man hidden behind a bush, unaware of his presence. In such a case, the act, while potentially rash or negligent, does not amount to culpable homicide because the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death to a human being is absent.

In his remarks, Justice Kainthla emphasized the lack of intent to cause the death of the victim, stating, “...they did not intend to cause the death of Som Dutt and cannot be prima facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, but would be liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature.”

This finding was pivotal. Section 103 of the BNS, like its predecessor Section 302 of the IPC, criminalizes murder and is a non-bailable offence. Conversely, Section 106 of the BNS, which deals with causing death by a rash or negligent act, is a bailable offence. By concluding that the petitioner's actions, at best, fell under the latter, the court determined that continued incarceration for a non-bailable offence was not justified.

The court concluded that there was insufficient material on record to prima facie hold the petitioner liable for the non-bailable offence of murder. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.

Legal Implications and Future Precedent

This judgment from the Himachal Pradesh High Court is one of the early judicial interpretations of the BNS's homicide provisions and carries significant weight for several reasons:

• Continuity of Legal Principles: The court's reliance on established principles from the IPC (specifically, the illustrations to Section 299) signals a judicial inclination towards ensuring continuity in the fundamental principles of criminal law, even with the transition to the new Sanhita. This provides a degree of predictability for legal practitioners.

• Primacy of Mens Rea : The ruling powerfully reiterates that the presence or absence of mens rea (a guilty mind) remains the central pillar in distinguishing between different degrees of homicide. In cases of accident or mistake of fact, where the intention to harm a human is absent, courts are likely to lean away from a murder charge.

• Guidance on Bail Jurisprudence under BNS: By categorizing the offence under the bailable Section 106 BNS, the court has set a precedent for how bail applications in similar accidental death cases might be treated under the new legal framework. It underscores that the gravity of the outcome (death) does not automatically warrant the application of the gravest non-bailable charges if the underlying intent is missing.

• Challenges for Prosecution: The decision highlights the burden on the prosecution to present clear and convincing evidence of intent to kill. The prosecution's own admission regarding the "mistaken belief" of the accused proved to be a critical flaw in their argument for a non-bailable charge. This case serves as a lesson in framing charges accurately based on the available evidence of intent.

While the petitioner has been granted bail, the charges concerning the disappearance of evidence (Section 238 BNS) and the subsequent desecration of the body remain serious and will be adjudicated during the trial. However, for the purpose of pre-trial detention, the court has made it clear that the primary offence does not prima facie attract the stringent provisions of murder. This ruling will undoubtedly be cited in future cases across the country as the judiciary continues to interpret and apply the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Case Details: * Case Name: Sandeep Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh * Case No.: Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2280 of 2025 * Date of Decision: October 6, 2025 * Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla