JUDGMENT We have given anxious hearing, which though innocuous in appearance, involves a very intricate question of law due to the peculiarity of facts and circumstances. 2. The three petitioners in this bail application are 'brothers, taken to custody on the allegation of patricide and are being prosecuted under s. 304 read with s. 34 IPC on the basis of complaint lodged by their half brother Bijoy Jaiswal. The complainant and all the accused petitioners live in the same premises, No. 3B Hazi Zakaria Lane, Calcutta-6, although separate in mess and habitation. The FIR case is that on 16-6-96 at 9.00 hour or so the complainant and his brother Pradip and their father Kalpnath, the one aged about 66 years, went to their god own at 248B, A.P.C. Road for unloading some article from a lorry. The three accused petitioners consanguinary step brothers to the complainant, appeared there and resisted them from unloading articles, claiming that nothing could be removed from the godown by the complainant, his father and his brother. Altercation ran to. a high pitch and at that time the accused petitioners, Sanjoy and Ajoy, the two full brothers abused their old father, Kalpnath in most filthy languages, at which abuses from his own sons, the old man, who was a patient of acute heart trouble, to the knowledge of the accused persons, was very much cut to the quick and had serious mental strain and shock. The petitioners, over and above that, beat up the old man with fists and blows and dashed him down on the ground. All these were too much than the old man with acute heart trouble could bear. He developed chest pain immediately and fell seriously ill. The complainant and his full brothers in no time summoned a doctor who advised for immediate removal of the patient to a nursing home, where the old man breathed his last at 3.40 p.m. that very date. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused petitioners inflicted physical injuries and hurled abuses causing immense mental strain to their father. By their words and deeds they caused death of the old man, knowing fully well that the heart of their father was so much damaged that he could hardly bear any such strain. The prosecution claims that thereby the petitioners, accused persons made themselves liable for an offence under s. 304/34 IPC. 4. By their words and deeds they caused death of the old man, knowing fully well that the heart of their father was so much damaged that he could hardly bear any such strain. The prosecution claims that thereby the petitioners, accused persons made themselves liable for an offence under s. 304/34 IPC. 4. The accused persons submit through their learned advocates that the FIR has been submitted by the complainant with a design to humiliate them with concocted assertions but even then, there is no ingredient of the offence under s. 304 IPC read with s. 34 IPC therein. The old man died of cardiac respiratory failure. It was a natural death and the accused persons were not in any way liable for the catastrophe. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that assuming for argument's sake that the petitioners acted just as the complainant stated in his FIR, the accused persons did not do any act to cause death of the old man and that there is no material to hold that they or any of them might be liable for an offence under s. 304 read with s. 34 IPC. 5. The learned PP produces the case diary and claims that the CD is quite eloquent to bring home that the accused persons resorted to constant torture of their father with a eye to his pelf and property. They lived in the same premises with their father. They were fully aware of the extremely diseased condition of the old man. But in spite of their definite knowledge about the state of health of their father and the seriousness of the disease he was suffering from, they hurled abuses at him which was too much for the old man to bear in that condition of his heart and also dealt fists and blows on him physically and dashed him on the ground. In the diseased condition of the old man it was too much for him to withstand and the act and conduct of the accused persons and their speaking's by hurling abuses certainly augmented the disease which the old man was suffering from within their knowledge. In the diseased condition of the old man it was too much for him to withstand and the act and conduct of the accused persons and their speaking's by hurling abuses certainly augmented the disease which the old man was suffering from within their knowledge. Over and above abusing the old man in the most filthy languages, they dealt blows and dashed him down and due to these speaking and acts engineered by the accused persons, the old man had his heart trouble severally augmented instantaneously, which he fell prey to. 6. We have examined the case diary in the light of the arguments of the learned advocates. The case diary reveals that the accused persons and the deceased lived in the same house but in different floors and their relationship was at daggers drawn. In this case diary there are sufficient materials to lead to believe that the accused persons abused the old man in most filthy languages at the time of the incident. The medical report and the statements recorded under s. 161 Cr.P.C. reveal that the patient was not only abused but also physically beaten up. Before the medical officers of the nursing home the old man himself complained that he was beaten up by the accused persons. The learned advocate for the accused persons argues that the act of the accused persons was never so much as to cause the death of any person, for less there was any material to believe that any of the accused petitioners had any intention to cause death of the old man. The senior advocate Sri Roy argues that there is nothing to show that the accused persons over caused any such bodily injury which might result in death and as such the accused persons can never be held liable for such a grave offence of culpable homicide as alleged. At the worst, he argues, the petitioners might beheld liable for applying force. The learned PP draws the attention of the Court to the language of s. 299 IPC and by scanning the section he submits that the section clearly provides that whoever causes death of any human being by doing an act with the knowledge that he is liable by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide. The learned PP draws the attention of the Court to the language of s. 299 IPC and by scanning the section he submits that the section clearly provides that whoever causes death of any human being by doing an act with the knowledge that he is liable by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide. He argues that the state of health and the nature of the disease the old man was suffering from were well-known to the accused persons as the victim was their father and was living in the same premises. But even then they resorted to hurling abuses in the most filthy languages desperately and such act on the part of his sons could not but tell upon the damaged heart and frail nerve of the old man. He draws attention of the Court also to the fact that the statements recorded under S.161 Cr. P. C. reveal copious material to hold that not only they hurled abuses but also hurled fists and blows on the old man. The learned PP argues that even by simply abusing the old man in the most filthy languages in that state of health, the petitioners might have caused that death of him and for that they cannot evade the responsibility of offence defined under s. 299 IPC. He draws attention of the Court to Explanation-I to s. 299IPC and maintains that it is clear from this provision of law that in that diseased condition of the heart of the old man, such abuses in the most filthy languages by none other than his own sons must have engaged the old man beyond control in that dilapidated physique and immediately aggravated the disease, finally taking toll of the life of the old man. He argues that even simply by speaking in that fashion, the accused persons must have caused the death of the old man knowingly as they knew full well the condition of his heart, and, such sort of behaviour was sufficient to draw the mischief of s. 299 IPC apart from physical injuries. The learned PP goes a step further and claims that the accused persons exceeded the boundary of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and. The learned PP goes a step further and claims that the accused persons exceeded the boundary of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and. by referring to the illustration (b) to s. 300 IPC, he argues that the accused persons clearly committed murder attracting the mischief of s. 300 IPC, for which they ought to have been liable for punishment spelt under s. 302 IPC. The act of the accused persons. the learned PP argues, in the special perspective of their knowledge of the disease of their father make them liable for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder undoubtedly, and even of murder as defined under s. 300 IPC. The learned advocate for the petitioners, of course, maintains that there is no sufficient material to believe infliction of bodily injury by the accused persons and unless bodily injury inflicted becomes sufficient to cause death neither s.299 nor s. 300 IPC may be attracted. 7. After hearing erudite arguments of the learned advocate for both the parties with rapt attention, on this ticklish point of law and fact, we find that it cannot be gainsaid that the old man had extremely diseased heart which could give in at the slightest provocation, and injury in the form of physical injury, by bearing and dashing down on ground or even such mental injuries as may result from abuses in filthy languages from one's own sons. It is true that the post-mortem examination report does not speak of any injury, external or internal, in the body of the deceased and the inquest report does not speak of any injury except a cut mark on the upper lip of the old man. The term "injury' as has been defined in s. 44 IPC denotes not only physical hurt but any harm whatsoever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. The extremely strained relation between the petitioners and a victim as is evident from the case diary leads one to presume reasonably that the prosecution case, that the petitioners-accused persons were reckless in their act, speaking and deed was correct. They resorted to inflicting injury on the old man even at the risk of causing death in that diseased condition of his health which was very much within the knowledge of the petitioners. They resorted to inflicting injury on the old man even at the risk of causing death in that diseased condition of his health which was very much within the knowledge of the petitioners. The author of the Code observed (as I find from page 314 of Ratanlals Commentary of IPC 1992 Edn.) that "The reasonable course in our opinion is to consider speaking as an act and to treat A as guilty of voluntary culpable homicide, if by speaking he has voluntarily caused Z's death whether his words operated circuitously by inducing Z to swallow poison or directly by throwing Z into convulsions'. This of course, requires a complete study of the person of the victim, his psychology, nature, disposition and surely physical condition. That the old man had serious heart trouble and at that dotting age his heart failure might be caused at slightest provocation must have been known to the petitioners due to the special circumstance that they were the sons of the old man and were living in the same premises. They must have known the state of affairs with the old man. The nature of injuries inflicted being largely mental by the act of speaking, and also to a large extent physical, by dealing fists and blows and dashing the old man on the ground, as appear from the case diary, one may very likely cause death of the old man and one acting in such fashion with knowledge about the prospect of his act must be held liable for causing death of the old man. Such injury by their very nature may not leave any mark on the body of the deceased. But that does not mean that their acts do no: attract the ingredient of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The petitioners having strained relation with the old man bore grudge for which they resorted to that sort of reckless act attracting s. 299 IPC, Explanation-I. The argument of the learned PP appears to be quite sound and his scanning of the s. 299 IPC read with Explanation-I thereof and also reference to Illustration (b) of s. 300 IPC cannot be brushed aside lightly. In this case the act of the accused persons does not come merely under the scope of applying criminal force. In this case the act of the accused persons does not come merely under the scope of applying criminal force. The medical report reveals that the patient in his morribund condition complained of beating up by his sons and the prosecution case of dashing down the old man on the ground in that state of heart and trail physique as are revealed from the statements recorded under s. 161 Cr.P.C. must be held to be the reckless act by the accused persons with full knowledge of the result of the act. Such act is surely sufficient to cause death of the old man. The act of the accused persons in that perspective of special knowledge of them about the diseased health of that man, must be presumed to have been done clearly attracting s. 299 IPC if not s. 300 IPC. The accused persons cannot evade the result of their act done with full knowledge and consciousness. 8. The case is prima facie of very serious nature. Investigation is at an incipient stage. We, therefore, reject the bail prayer of all the accused persons at this stage. Debi Prasad Sircar (1), J.: I agree. Petition rejected.