The Supreme Court on Friday laid down guidelines for courts to distinguish between offences of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and attempt to murder under Section 307 [Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh]..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said,"Where death is delayed due to later complications or developments, the courts should consider the nature of the injury, complications or the attending circumstances. If the complications or developments are the natural, or probable, or necessary consequence of the injury, and if it is reasonably contemplated as its result, the injury could be said to have caused death. If on the other hand, the chain of consequences is broken, or if there is unexpected complication causing new mischief, the relation of cause and effect is not established, or the causal connection is too remote then the injury cannot be said to have caused death...".The Court proceeded to lay down guidelines on when Section 302 IPC applies in cases of delayed death after an assault:If the injury was fatal and intended to cause death, even if death occurs after complications like septicaemia, it is murder under the first limb of Section 300 IPC.If the injuries alone could cause death and were intended, death after complications still falls under the third limb of Section 300 IPC; the accused is liable under Section 302 IPC.If injuries were life-threatening, death after complications still falls under the fourth limb of Section 300 IPC; the accused is liable under Section 302 IPC.Whether medical treatment could have prevented death is irrelevant in judging if injuries were sufficient to cause death.If complications are attributable to the injuries, the assailant remains liable even if death was not a direct result of the injuries.Death from complications may be a remote possibility or practically inevitable; in the latter case, it is almost certain, amounting to murder under Section 302 IPC.Even if no single injury is sufficient to cause death, combined injuries may show intent to kill and be sufficient to cause death.Courts must focus on whether the injuries were sufficient or intended to likely cause death, regardless of intervening causes..The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had altered the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC (punishment for murder) by the trial court to one under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder).According to the prosecution, the appellant, along with three others, trespassed into the house of the victim, dragged him to the terrace, threw him down and assaulted him with sticks and fists. The victim remained in a critical condition for nearly nine months before succumbing to his injuries in November 2022. Medical evidence established that his death was caused by septic shock, pneumonia and multi-organ failure resulting directly from spinal cord injuries sustained in the attack.The High Court, however, held that the death was attributable to lack of proper treatment nine months later and, therefore, modified the conviction to one under Section 307 IPC..Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court Court held that the High Court had “grossly erred” by treating the delayed death as a break in the chain of causation."All that we can say is that the High Court committed a serious error in bringing the case within the ambit of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of the IPC on the ground that the victim survived for almost nine months from the date of the incident, and died on account of pneumonia and other complications during the course of treatment and not due to the injuries suffered at the time of assault. We do not agree with the view expressed by the High Court in the Impugned Judgment and order," Court said.The Court stressed that the seriousness of the assault, the intentional nature of the act and the type of injury inflicted all pointed towards culpability for murder. The victim’s prolonged survival did not absolve the accused of liability, Court added.Restoring the trial court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC, the Court ruled that the High Court’s modification of the offence to Section 307 IPC was legally unsustainable..[Read Judgment]
