Satyam’s wife and his only daughter died, due to lack of food. State whether Satyam is liable or not?

Facts of the Case

• Satyam lived with his wife and minor daughter.
• Both wife and daughter died due to starvation / lack of food.
• It is alleged that Satyam failed to provide basic necessities required for their survival.
• The circumstances indicate neglect and omission, not an active physical act.
• The question is whether Satyam had a legal duty to maintain them and whether failure to fulfil that duty amounts to a criminal offence.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether a husband/father has a legal obligation to provide food and necessities to his wife and minor child?
2. Whether failure to provide food resulting in death constitutes an offence under IPC?
3. Whether Satyam’s omission amounts to:
   • Culpable Homicide (Section 299 IPC) or
   • Murder (Section 300 IPC) or
   • Causing death by negligence (Section 304-A IPC), or
   • Cruelty/neglect under Section 498A IPC?
4. Whether the death was due to Satyam’s intentional or reckless failure?

Legal Principles Covered

A. Legal Duty to Maintain Wife and Child

• A husband and father has a legal obligation to provide basic necessities to his wife and children (under IPC, CrPC Section 125, and personal laws).
• Omission to fulfil this duty can amount to criminal liability if it results in death.

B. Section 299 IPC – Culpable Homicide by Omission

• Homicide can occur through intentional omission when there exists a legal duty to act.
• If the accused deliberately fails to provide food knowing it may cause death, he may be liable for culpable homicide.

C. Section 304 IPC – Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

• Applies when death is caused by an act or omission done with knowledge but without intention to kill.

D. Section 304-A IPC – Causing death by negligence

• If Satyam’s act was negligent or reckless rather than intentional, he may be liable under this section.
• Punishment: imprisonment up to 2 years, fine, or both.

E. Section 498A IPC – Cruelty Against Wife

• If starvation results from cruelty or intentional deprivation of food, Section 498A may apply.

F. Concept of “Duty to Prevent Danger” – Section 32 & 33 IPC

• An “act” includes illegal omissions when a person is legally bound to act.
• Failure to provide food is an illegal omission.

Possible Judgement

If Satyam Wilfully Failed to Provide Food

• If he deliberately denied food to his wife and child knowing it would endanger their lives:
  ✔ He is liable for culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
  ✔ If cruelty is proven, Section 498A also applies.
  ✔ The court will treat his omission as equivalent to an intentional act.

If the Death Occurred Due to Negligence (Not Intentional)

• If Satyam did not have the intention or knowledge that his omission would cause death:
  ✔ He may be punished under Section 304-A IPC for causing death by negligence.

If Satyam Himself Was Impoverished and Unable to Provide Food

• If evidence shows that Satyam did not intentionally starve them and
  he himself lacked the means to survive,
  ✔ He may not be held criminally liable.
  ✔ Poverty is not a criminal offence unless accompanied by wilful neglect.

About lawgnan

For clear, accessible, and authoritative legal explanations on criminal liability, omissions, family responsibilities, and IPC offences, visit Lawgana.in—India’s trusted legal knowledge destination. Whether you are a student, advocate, or someone facing real-life legal challenges, Lawgana.in provides practical insights, case-law summaries, and simplified legal guides crafted by experts. Explore detailed analyses of culpable homicide, negligence, cruelty, constitutional rights, and family law duties. Stay informed, enhance your legal understanding, and rely on Lawgana.in for accurate, updated, and easy-to-read legal content tailored for everyone seeking clarity in Indian law.