The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that when a person is accidentally shot after being mistaken for a wild animal, the act amounts to causing death by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and not murder under Section 103 BNS. Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that since there was no intention to kill, the offence would fall under negligence, which is bailable in nature.
The case involved a man, Som Dutt, who went missing in January 2025. During investigation, police discovered that he had gone to a forest with the petitioner and another man, Sandeep, all carrying guns. Later, the police recovered a partially burnt body without its head. Post-mortem revealed multiple gunshot injuries to the chest and head, leading to death by shock and haemorrhage.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner and Sandeep fired shots under the impression they were targeting a wild animal, not realizing Som Dutt was hidden in the bushes. The petitioner was booked for offences under Sections 103 (murder), 238 (destruction of evidence), and 3(5) (common intention) of BNS, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He sought bail, arguing that even if the prosecution’s version was accepted, it was at most a case of negligence and not intentional killing.
The Court noted that the prosecution itself admitted the firing was done under mistaken belief, comparing the situation to illustration (c) of Section 299 IPC and Section 100 BNS—where someone aiming at a bird accidentally kills a person behind bushes. In such circumstances, the act may be negligent but does not constitute murder.
Accordingly, the Court held that the material on record did not justify treating the case as a non-bailable offence and concluded that the petitioner could only be charged under Section 106 BNS for negligent death.
