Attempt to Murder vs Murder: Understanding Section 307 and Section 302 IPC

Case Name: Maniklal Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh. 

Introduction:

The Supreme Court in the present case ruled that because there is a lapse in time, when a person is injured and when they die, it will not mean the offence should be considered as an attempt to murder instead of murder. The Bench says what matters is whether the death was a direct and likely to cause original injury. If the injury naturally or unavoidable led to the person's death, the offence will still be treated as murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Supreme Court judges deliberating on a fatal injury case under IPC 300 & 302.

Background

The appellant, at the time of the incident, Maniklal Sahu, was accompanied by three others without permission entered the house of the victim, Rekhchand Verma. They Aggressively dragged him to the terrace and threw him off. After he went down, they repeatedly beat him with sticks and fists, and the victim was taken to the hospital in a critical condition. At hospital the victim gave the dying declaration where he identified the appellant and other 3 as an accused also made oral statements to the doctor. However, the victim survived for about nine months and in November 2022 because of septicemia and pneumonia, which caused heart failure. Post death, the police frame the section 302 on accused. The case went to trial court and convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, the accused appealed in the High Court and high court changed the order of the trial court and convicted from murder (Section 302) to attempt to murder (Section 307), stated that the death happened much later. Hence this appeal.

Supreme Court explain key test for charges under attempt to murder or murder

Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan Bench delivered a significant finding for the upcoming case. It observed that the injuries to the appellant didn't heal and eventually caused the victim’s death. The Court said high court made a wrong decision to reduce the punishment just because there was a gap of nine-month between the assault and death. 

Court Added, “In the present case, as per the oral testimony of the three doctors referred to above, the cause of death of deceased Rekhchand was cardiorespiratory failure. The injuries suffered by him at the time of assault lead to septic shock with bilateral pneumonia, post traumatic spinal cord injury with paraplegia and infected bedsore hepatic dysfunction. The injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and would come under clause “Thirdly” of Section 300 of the IPC. The deceased ultimately died having not recovered from the injuries. The presence of the supervening cause in the circumstances will not, in our view, alter the culpability. In the case in hand, there had been no such considerable change of circumstances as to snap the chain of causation. It would have been quite a different matter if the original injuries had healed meanwhile or ceased to be dangerous to life and the fatal complications had set in unexpectedly. If that would have been so, the appellant herein would then at any rate be entitled to the benefit of doubt as to the cause of death.” 

“We are taken by surprise as to on what basis the High Court has recorded a finding that the deceased succumbed to the injuries suffered by him due to lack of proper treatment. There is absolutely no evidence in this regard. Not a single suggestion in this regard was put by the defence counsel in the cross-examination of the doctors. Even otherwise this aspect is wholly irrelevant in view of Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC. In other words, according to the High Court, since the deceased died after about nine months from the date of the incident due to lack of proper treatment the case is not one of murder. This finding in our opinion is erroneous. On one hand, the High Court believes that the cause of death was due to injuries suffered by the deceased, and on the other hand, takes the view that as he died after nine months due to lack of proper treatment the offence would fall within Section 307 of the IPC.” 

The Court Laid down key test which court need to be followed when dealing with case where delay in death due to fatal injury

• If person died due to septicemia but earlier hospitalized because of fatal injury which meant to cause death, its clearly comes under murder.

  
  

• If the injuries were critical enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and the accused planned to cause those injuries, it will amount to murder under Section 300 IPC even if death occurred later.

  
  

• If it is confirmed that the injuries were ultimately life-threatening, and the accused had knowledge, then even if death took place due to septicemia or other Consequences, the act falls under Section 300 of the IPC and punishable under article 302 of IPC. 

  
  

• In determining the whether the injuries caused were enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the possibility efficient medical treatment might prevent t is wholly irrelevant.  

  
  

• From injuries If any problems happened, the person who caused the injuries is responsible for the death, even if the death wasn’t directly from the injuries themselves. 

  
  

• Courts must determine between two situations: 

  When the cause of death, like peritonitis, is a rare or unlikely result of the injury, meaning death may not usually follow from it. 

  When the complication is an almost certain result of the injury, making death highly likely. 

  
  

• Even when the medical evidence does not say that any one of the injuries on the body of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, yet it is open to the Court to look into the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and infer from them that the assailants intended to cause death of the deceased. If none of the injuries alone were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased, cumulatively, they may be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 

  
  

• What the courts must see is whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or to cause such bodily injuries as the accused knew to be likely to cause death although death was ultimately due to supervention of some other cause. An intervening cause or complication is by itself not of such significance. What is significant is whether death was only a remote possibility or is one which would have occurred in due course. 

  
  

• To sum it up, 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. If the original injury itself is of a fatal nature, it makes no difference that death is caused by a complication naturally flowing from the injury and not the injury itself, since causal connection is proximate.

Conclusion: 

In the circumstances referred to above, we reach the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Supreme Court clarified that a delay between the injury and the victim's death does not reduce the charge from murder to attempted murder. If the death is a natural, probable, or direct result of the injury caused, the accused can be held guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now