Accidentally Shooting Another Person Believing Him To Be Wild Animal Amounts To Negligence, Not Murder: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an accidental shooting of a person, believing him to be a wild animal, amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and not the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “…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.”

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail for offences under Sections 103 (murder)and 238 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information) read with Section 3(5) (common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (possession and use of illegal arms).

In January 2025, the deceased, Som Dutt, was reported missing. The police, during the investigation, found that the deceased and the petitioner, along with one other person, Sandeep, had gone to the forest with guns.

Later, the police recovered a partially burnt, dead body without its head from the jungle. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple gunshot wounds to the chest and head.

The petitioner was a pump operator in a pump installed in the 'jungle'. It was the deceased who first went to the jungle, armed with guns, and thereafter the petitioner and Sandeep also went in search of a wild animal. The petitioner and Sandeep shot the deceased, mistaking him for a wild animal, as the deceased was hiding behind the bushes.

The petitioner contended that he was being falsely implicated merely based on call details, which were insufficient to connect him with the commission of the crime.

He further contended that even if the prosecution's case was accepted as correct, it would not amount to murder under Section 103 of the BNS. At most, it would amount to causing death by negligence under Section 106 BNS, which is a bailable offence.

The Court noted that the prosecution itself admitted that the co-accused fired under the mistaken belief of hunting a bird. The court stated that this falls under illustration (c) to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 100 of the BNS, when a person shoots at a bird but accidentally kills a man hidden behind bushes.

The Court remarked that in such a case, the act is negligent but not intentional murder. Thus, the Court concluded that there was insufficient material to hold the petitioner for a non-bailable offence.

Case Name: Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.

Case No.: Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1933 of 2025

Date of Decision: 19.09.2025

For the Petitioner: M/s Kshitij Sharma, Prashant Sharma and Shobhit Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Click Here To Read/Download Order