Rajasthan HC quashes cognizance for attempt to commit culpable homicide on dead person, terms allegations of organ removal speculative

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that an offence under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) cannot be made out in respect of a person who is already dead, observing that attempting to cause death of a deceased person is a legal impossibility. The Court further held that criminal proceedings based on speculative allegations of illegal organ removal, without any supporting evidence or statutory compliance, cannot be sustained.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 316/2020, wherein the Court quashed the order dated October 5, 2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 24, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan, taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 201, 308 and 120-B IPC.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the brother of the deceased Sitaram, alleging that the petitioners, associated with a charitable shelter home, had illegally removed organs from the body of the deceased and sold them without informing the family.

According to the petitioners, Sitaram was found in a critical condition on the roadside and was admitted to the shelter home, where he was treated but eventually died due to cardiopulmonary failure. His last rites were performed with dignity, and no suspicious circumstances were reported at the time of death.

The Court noted that prior to filing the complaint, a police enquiry had already been conducted, which concluded that the allegations were baseless. Despite this, the complainant filed a second complaint before the Magistrate, leading to the impugned cognizance order.

At the outset, the Court examined the applicability of Section 308 IPC and held that the provision applies only where there is an act done with the intention or knowledge of causing death of a living person. The Court observed that once a person has already died, the essential ingredient of causing or attempting to cause death is absent.

The Court categorically held that attempting to commit culpable homicide on a dead person amounts to an “impossible attempt” and cannot constitute an offence under Section 308 IPC. It found the reasoning of the trial court to be legally unsustainable in taking cognizance on such allegations.

The High Court further relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Pepsi Food Limited vs Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), reiterating that summoning an accused is a serious matter and requires proper application of mind by the Magistrate. The Court found that the Magistrate had failed to examine whether the allegations, even if taken at face value, disclosed any offence.

On the allegation of illegal organ removal, the Court observed that such acts are governed by the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, which provides a specific statutory mechanism. The Court noted that no complaint was filed before the competent authority under the Act, and no prima facie evidence, such as post-mortem or inquest report, was produced to support the allegations.

The Court further held that in the absence of any medical or documentary evidence showing removal of organs, the allegations remained hypothetical and based on mere suspicion. It also took note of the conduct of the complainant, observing that no missing report was filed when the deceased was untraceable and that the earlier police enquiry had already negated the allegations.

The Court also found that the second complaint filed by the complainant amounted to a successive complaint on the same facts, which is impermissible in law in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala.

In conclusion, the High Court held that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners for any of the alleged offences. It observed that once the primary offence under Section 308 IPC fails, the allied offences under Sections 201 and 120-B IPC also cannot survive.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order of cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising from the complaint. The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed and all pending applications were disposed of.

Case Title
Bishan Lal Jangid & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 316/2020

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Bench
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Date of Order
March 19, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioners: Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For the respondents: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Neeraj Sharma