THROUGH an important decision of the appeal from Chhattsigarh HighCourt,on September 12,2025, in the case- Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadeven, at the Supreme Court have expressed opinion that the High Court has 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 the treatment and not due to the injuries suffered at the time of assault.

 

The SC has said that the Court does not agree with the view expressed by the HC in the impugned judgement and order. This appeal was filed by a convict-accused and was directed against the judgement and order passed by the Chhattisgarh HC on July 30, 2024 in Criminal Appeal 607/2023, by which the HC has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and altered the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the IPC into one under the Section 307of IPC. It appears from materials on record that four persons including the appellant herein were put to trial for the offence of murder of one Rekhchand Verma in the Sessions case 21/2022 from the FIR 0061/2022 of February 22, 2022 registered with the Saja Police Station in Bemetra District, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under sections 458, 294, 506(B) and 323 of the IPC respectively.

 

It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful day of the incident, the appellant along with three other accused trespassed into the house of the deceased and dragged him upon the terrace of the house and flung him down. After the deceased was thrown down from the terrace, the appellant and other accused assaulted him with sticks and fisticuffs. The injured was shifted to the hospital in very critical condition. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded in which he named the appellant herein and the other co-accused. The deceased also made oral dying declarations before the doctors who attended him medically in the hospital. It appears that the injured Rekhchand Verma survived for about nine months from the date of the alleged incident. Ultimately, he died on November 8, 2022 on account of septicemia and pneumonia leading to cardio-respiratory arrest. In such Circumstances section 302 of the IPC came to be added. At the end of the trial, 4 accused including the appellant came to be convicted for committing murder and were sentenced to suffer life-imprisonment. According to the SC, the only question it has to answer in this case is whether the HC has committed any error in passing the impugned judgement and order. The HC has said that it only proposes to examine in the present appeal whether the HC has committed any error in altering the conviction. The exercise it proposes to undertake is ultimately going to be academic, as there is no appeal for acquittal has been filed at the instance of the State.

 

However the Court should not ignore or overlook the gross error committed by the HC. The Court has to explain, why the HC is wrong in its view. The Supreme Court has highlighted few broad principles that the Courts must keep in mind: (a)If it is proved that the injury was fatal and the intention was to cause death, though the death occurred after several days of septicemia or other complications having supervened, yet it is undoubtedly a murder, as it falls within first limb of ‘murder’. (Section 300 of the IPC) (b) If it is proved that the injuries by themselves were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and if it is established that those injuries were the intended injuries, though the death might have occurred after septicemia and other complications had supervened, yet the act of the accused would squarely fall under the third limb of the section 300 IPC and the accused is therefore, liable to be punished under section 300 of the IPC.

 

(c) If it is proved that the injuries were imminently dangerous to life, though the death occurred after septicemia and other complications have supervened, yet the act of the accused would squarely fall under the fourth limb of the section 300 IPC, provided the other requirements like knowledge on the part of the accused etc. are satisfied and so the accused would be liable to be punished under section 302 IPC. Here also, the primary cause of the death is the injuries and septicemia. (d) In judging whether the injuries inflicted were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, the possibility that skilful and efficient medical treatment might prevent the fatal result is wholly irrelevant. (e) If the supervening causes are attributable to the injuries caused, then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death, even if the death was not the direct result of the injuries.

 

(f) Broadly speaking, the courts would have to undertake the exercise to distinguish between two types of case : first, the intervening cause of death, like peritonitis, is only a remote and rather improbable consequence of the injury; then it can be said that the injury is one which may, in particular circumstances result in death, but which may not in ordinary course of nature be likely to lead to death. Secondly, the consequence, which is ultimate cause of death is itself a practically inevitable sequence to the injury, the probability is very high indeed, amounting to practical certainty, that is death is a result in due course of natural events. A deep abdominal thrust with a knife followed by injury to the internal organs in practically certain to result in acute peritonitis causing death. It is clearly a case of murder under section 302 and not merely of culpable homicide. In the opinion of the Supreme Court,there is no merit in appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.