When Does Death After Prolonged Medical Complications Still Constitute Murder Under IPC?

 

Summary

Category Data
Court Supreme Court of India
Case Number Crl.A. No.-005578-005578 – 2024
Diary Number 44588/2024
Judge Name HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
Bench HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Precedent Value Binding authority
Overrules / Affirms Affirms established tests for causation; overrules the High Court’s reclassification to Section 307 IPC
Type of Law Criminal law
Questions of Law
  • Whether death after nine months and intervening septic shock or pneumonia breaks the causal chain for murder under IPC Sections 299–302.
  • Proper test for proximate causation and classification of an offence as murder or attempt (Section 307 IPC).
Ratio Decidendi
  1. If injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, subsequent complications (e.g., septicemia, pneumonia) do not negate culpability under Sections 299–302 IPC.
  2. Explanation 2 to Section 299 makes medical failure or delay irrelevant once fatal injury is established.
  3. Death delayed by natural or probable medical complications remains murder if the original act meets any limb of Section 300.
  4. Tests for intention (Section 307) and proximate cause must focus on the nature of injury, weapon, body-parts targeted, and known probabilities, not on elapsed time.
  5. A court must distinguish remote or unlikely consequences from those naturally or overwhelmingly probable.
Judgments Relied Upon
  • Sreedharan v. State of Kerala (1969 SCC OnLine Ker 46)
  • Reg. v. Cassidy ((1867) 4 Bom. H.C. 17)
  • Emperor v. Gogte (1932 SCC OnLine Bom 1)
  • R. v. Whybrow (1951–35 Cr Appl 141)
  • R. v. Grimwood (1962–3 AER 285)
  • Brintons Ltd. v. Turvey (1905 AC 230)
  • In re Maragatham (Mad HC)
  • Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2023) 11 SCC 320)
  • Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi ((1975) 3 SCC 831)
  • Patel Hiralal Joitaram v. State of Gujarat ((2002) 1 SCC 22)
  • State of Haryana v. Pala ((1996) 8 SCC 51)
  • Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab ((1999) 2 SCC 174)
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court
  • Statutory definitions of culpable homicide (Section 299), murder (Section 300), punishment (Section 302), attempt to murder (Section 307).
  • Explanation 2 to Section 299 on medical intervention.
  • Objective “reasonable man” test for intention and knowledge.
  • Distinction between proximate cause and remote supervening causes.
  • Tests from common law (e.g., Pneumonia after head injury remains direct result).
  • Emphasis on nature of weapon, manner of use, injuries inflicted, and attendant circumstances to infer mens rea.
Facts as Summarised by the Court
  • On 22.02.2022 the appellant and three others trespassed into deceased’s house, flung him from the terrace and assaulted him with sticks.
  • Rekhchand Verma survived nine months in hospital, finally dying on 08.11.2022 of septic shock, bilateral pneumonia, post-traumatic spinal cord injury with paraplegia and infected bedsores.
  • Trial Court convicted them under Section 302 IPC; the Chhattisgarh High Court altered conviction to Section 307 IPC, citing lapse of nine months and chain of treatment.
  • Supreme Court heard medical and ocular evidence, rejected notion that delayed death absolves murder liability.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All courts in India (Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts)
Persuasive For Other High Courts, especially in appeals against reclassification under Section 307 IPC
Overrules The Chhattisgarh High Court’s finding that delayed death due to medical complications reduces murder to attempted murder
Follows Long-standing Supreme Court precedents on causation and Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Even if death occurs after months of treatment due to septic shock or pneumonia, the original assailant can still be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC if injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.
  • Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC renders the quality of medical care irrelevant once fatal injury is proved.
  • Delay between assault and death is not a safe ground for reclassification to attempt if complications were natural or probable sequelae of the injury.
  • Strengthens the objective “reasonable man” test for intention and causation in both Sections 300/302 and Section 307 IPC analysis.
  • Lawyers can cite this judgment to counter appellate arguments seeking to reduce a murder charge based on delayed death or alleged medical negligence.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. Medical Evidence Review
    • Three doctors (PW-9, PW-24, PW-28) consistently testified: initial head and spinal injuries led to paraplegia, sepsis, pneumonia, multi-organ failure and death.
    • Postmortem (Ex.P.34) confirms death by cardiorespiratory arrest due to septic shock from infected bedsores.
  2. Statutory Framework
    • Section 299 IPC: culpable homicide definitions; Explanation 2 treats preventable death the same as direct death.
    • Section 300 IPC: four limbs defining murder; death need not be instantaneous.
    • Section 307 IPC: attempt to murder requires intention or knowledge but no actual death.
  3. Causation Tests
    • Injury is proximate cause if complications are natural/probable consequences (Brintons Ltd., Holland, Turvey).
    • Remote or unlikely supervening causes can break causal chain (Nga Moe).
    • Time lapse alone is not determinative (Prasad Pradhan, Sudershan Kumar).
  4. Intention & Mens Rea
    • Drawn from weapon, manner, targeted body-parts, nature and location of wounds (Sreedharan).
    • Objective “reasonable man” standard applies; possibility of medical intervention is irrelevant.
  5. Application to Facts
    • Original head and spinal injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.
    • Subsequent sepsis/pneumonia were natural sequelae, not independent intervening causes.
    • High Court erred in treating delayed death as a lack of intent or causal link.
  6. Conclusion
    • Conviction under Section 302 IPC stands; reclassification to Section 307 IPC was a gross legal error.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

  • Death occurred nine months post-assault; no nexus between assault injuries and death.
  • Eye-witnesses (brothers and mother) were interested and unreliable.

Respondent

  • Did not file acquittal appeal; maintained that Section 307 conviction may stand if Supreme Court finds error under Section 302 reclassification.

Factual Background

Rekhchand Verma was attacked on 22 February 2022 by the appellant and three others, thrown from a terrace and beaten with sticks and fists. He was admitted in critical condition with head and spinal injuries, later developing paraplegia, infected bed-sores, septic shock and pneumonia. He survived in hospital for nine months before succumbing on 8 November 2022. The trial court convicted for murder (Section 302 IPC), but the High Court reduced it to attempt (Section 307 IPC), prompting this appeal.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 299 IPC: Defines culpable homicide; Explanation 2 deems death caused even if preventable by medical care.
  • Section 300 IPC: Specifies murder if act done with intention or knowledge to cause death or grievous injury likely to cause death.
  • Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder.
  • Section 307 IPC: Punishment for attempt to murder; focuses on intention and knowledge, regardless of actual death.
  • Key Point: The ordinary-course-of-nature test for fatal injury is unaffected by delayed or complicated medical treatment.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmation of established tests for causation and mens rea.
  • 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Overrules Chhattisgarh High Court’s reclassification of murder to attempt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.