Absence of medical evidence and direct witness testimony precludes cognizance of Section 304 IPC for subsequent death.

The petitioner (informant) filed an FIR alleging that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 forcibly entered her house, assaulted her, her mother-in-law (Urmila Devi), and her brother-in-law over a land dispute

The petitioner claimed her mother-in-law sustained internal injuries during the scuffle and died a few days later

However, the police charge-sheeted the accused only under Sections 447, 341, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC, omitting Section 304 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder)

On 19.06.2026, the ACJM 1st, Purnea, took cognizance based on the charge sheet

The petitioner moved the High Court in revision, seeking to include Section 304 IPC in the cognizance order

Whether the learned trial court committed an illegality or impropriety by failing to take cognizance under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code despite allegations of the victim's death following the assault.

The court applied the principles governing the stage of taking cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), emphasizing that while a prima facie case is required, there must be "credible material" on record to support the specific charges

The court examined the requirements of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, which necessitates a causal link between the act of the accused and the death of the person

The Court observed that there was a complete lack of medical evidence to link the alleged assault to the death of the mother-in-law. The record indicated that the deceased was not medically examined on the date of the occurrence and showed no visible injuries

Investigation revealed that she was hospitalized a week later in an unconscious state, where doctors diagnosed a "paralytic attack" rather than trauma-induced injuries

Furthermore, witnesses cited in the case diary (paragraphs 48 and 49) admitted they did not actually see the accused assaulting the deceased and only "came to know" about it later

The Court reasoned that mere allegations in a written report or statements by interested family members do not suffice for cognizance under Section 304 IPC when contradicted by medical findings and lack of ocular evidence

Finding no infirmity, illegality, or impropriety in the order dated 19.06.2026, the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision

The revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit