Vagal Inhibition Death: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Culpable Homicide Conviction, Says Accused Couldn't Have Known Their Act Would Cause Death
The Bombay High Court recently set aside the conviction of three persons convicted for culpable homicide of a chicken shop owner, observing that the cause of his death was unusual and they could not have known their assault would result in his death.The court took note of the doctor's report wherein he had said that the death was caused possibly due to cardiac arrest due to vagal...
The Bombay High Court recently set aside the conviction of three persons convicted for culpable homicide of a chicken shop owner, observing that the cause of his death was unusual and they could not have known their assault would result in his death.
The court took note of the doctor's report wherein he had said that the death was caused possibly due to cardiac arrest due to vagal inhibition. The doctor had said some people are hypersensitive at neck region and use of force in the neck region of such a person may result in vagal inhibition.
"This is an unusual occurrence and the accused cannot be said to have any knowledge that their act would result in death of the deceased," the court observed, while setting aside the conviction under Section 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC.
Justice Sarang V. Kotwal convicted the three appellants for voluntarily causing grievous hurt instead. The court said that the act of pressing the victim's neck and giving blows on the chest showed that the appellants had the intention to cause injuries which could endanger the victim's life.
"Looking at the act of pressing neck and giving blows on the chest, intention and knowledge can be attributed to all the accused of causing such injury which was endangering life of Firoz. In this particular case, requisites of intention and knowledge can be attributed to all the accused," the court observed and convicted the appellants under section 325 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the IPC.
The court sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years stating that since the deceased lost his life, more leniency cannot be shown.
The deceased Firoz was the owner of a chicken shop. On the day of the incident, the appellants Sanjay, Kundan, and Damodar went to his shop to buy chicken. He refused because of pending dues resulting into a quarrel.
Sanjay pressed the neck of the deceased and the other two punched him on the chest and face. He fell on the spot and died. His wife lodged an FIR and the appellants were arrested. The trial court convicted them under section 304 of the IPC.
The court noted that all the witnesses gave consistent testimony and identified the appellants in a tested identification parade. Therefore, the prosecution established the identity of the assailants as well as their specific role beyond reasonable doubt, the court held.
The trial court had observed that the incident happened at the spur of the moment and without any premeditation. Relying on the medical evidence, the trial court concluded that it was a homicidal death and convicted the appellants.
However, the court did not agree with the trial court's reasoning for conviction under section 304 (II) IPC. The court said that while there is some connection between the assault and the cause of death, there is no serious damage to any of the vital organs because of the blows. The appellants cannot be said to have intention or knowledge that their assault would cause death, the court said.
The court relied on the 'Eighthly' clause of section 320 (definition of grievous hurt) of the I.P.C. which includes any hurt which endangers life. The court opined that the appellants knew and intended to cause such injury which was endangering the life of the deceased.
Therefore, the court set aside the culpable homicide conviction and convicted the appellants under Section 325 of the IPC.
The court noted that all the accused were young at the time of offence and had no other antecedents. Further, they have been incarcerated for a considerable period of time. Therefore, the maximum sentence of seven years under section 325 IPC is not warranted, the court opined.
Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2019
Case Title – Sanjaykumar Shivmangal Bharati v. State of Maharashtra & Anr with connected case
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 507