# Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1107
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5578 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maniklal-sahu-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-38001
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

Whether the High Court committed any error in bringing the case
within the ambit of "attempt to commit murder" punishable u/s.307
IPC on the ground that the deceased-R died after a period of nine
months from the date of the incident.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - First limb of s.300 - Fatal injury -
Intention to cause death - Death occurs after several days of
complications - Principle that Courts must remember:
Held: If it is proved that the injury was fatal and the intention was
to cause death, though the death occurred after several days of
septicaemia or other complications having supervened, yet it is
undoubtedly a murder as it falls within the first limb of s.300 of
the IPC. [Para 69(a)]
Penal Code, 1860 - Third limb of s.300 - Injuries sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature - Intended
injuries - Death occurs after complications - Principle that
Courts must remember:
Held: 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 septicaemia or other complications had
supervened, yet the act of the accused would squarely fall under
the third limb of s.300 of the IPC and the accused is therefore
liable to be punished u/s.302 of the IPC. [Para 69(b)]
* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
213
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Penal Code, 1860 - Fourth limb of s.300 - Injuries imminently
dangerous to life - Death occurs after complications - Principle
that Courts must remember:
Held: If it is proved that the injuries were imminently dangerous
to life, though the death had occurred after septicaemia or other
complications had supervened, yet the act of the accused would
squarely fall under the fourth limb of s.300 of the 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
u/s.302 of the IPC - Here also, the primary cause of the death is
the injuries and septicaemia. [Para 66(c)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.300 - When injuries inflicted were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death -
Relevancy of skilful and efficient medical treatment:
Held: In judging whether the injuries inflicted were sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the possibility that
skilful and efficient medical treatment might prevent the fatal result
is wholly irrelevant. [Para 66(d)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.300 - When the supervening causes
are attributable to the injuries caused - Whether the person
inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death:
Held: If the supervening causes are attributable to the injuries caused,
then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death,
even if death was not the direct result of the injuries. [Para 66(e)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - The Courts to distinguish two types
of cases i.e. first where the intervening cause of death, like
peritonitis, is only a remote consequence of the injury and
second where the complication which is the intervening cause
of death is itself a practically inevitable sequence to the injury:
Held: Broadly speaking, the courts would have to undertake the
exercise to distinguish between two types of cases; first, where
the intervening cause of death, like peritonitis, is only a remote
and a 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 it - Secondly, where the complication which
is the intervening cause of death is itself a practically inevitable
214
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sequence to the injury - In that event, the probability is very high
indeed, amounting to practical certainty i.e., death is a result in
due course of natural events - A deep abdominal thrust with a
knife followed by injury to th

## Text

_Characters 0–39,963 of 87,068. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39963 for what follows._

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 212 : 2025 INSC 1107
Maniklal Sahu
v.
State of Chhattisgarh
(Criminal Appeal No. 5578 of 2024)
12 September 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court committed any error in bringing the case
within the ambit of "attempt to commit murder" punishable u/s.307
IPC on the ground that the deceased-R died after a period of nine
months from the date of the incident.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - First limb of s.300 - Fatal injury -
Intention to cause death - Death occurs after several days of
complications - Principle that Courts must remember:
Held: If it is proved that the injury was fatal and the intention was
to cause death, though the death occurred after several days of
septicaemia or other complications having supervened, yet it is
undoubtedly a murder as it falls within the first limb of s.300 of
the IPC. [Para 69(a)]
Penal Code, 1860 - Third limb of s.300 - Injuries sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature - Intended
injuries - Death occurs after complications - Principle that
Courts must remember:
Held: 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 septicaemia or other complications had
supervened, yet the act of the accused would squarely fall under
the third limb of s.300 of the IPC and the accused is therefore
liable to be punished u/s.302 of the IPC. [Para 69(b)]
* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
213
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Penal Code, 1860 - Fourth limb of s.300 - Injuries imminently
dangerous to life - Death occurs after complications - Principle
that Courts must remember:
Held: If it is proved that the injuries were imminently dangerous
to life, though the death had occurred after septicaemia or other
complications had supervened, yet the act of the accused would
squarely fall under the fourth limb of s.300 of the 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
u/s.302 of the IPC - Here also, the primary cause of the death is
the injuries and septicaemia. [Para 66(c)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.300 - When injuries inflicted were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death -
Relevancy of skilful and efficient medical treatment:
Held: In judging whether the injuries inflicted were sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the possibility that
skilful and efficient medical treatment might prevent the fatal result
is wholly irrelevant. [Para 66(d)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.300 - When the supervening causes
are attributable to the injuries caused - Whether the person
inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death:
Held: If the supervening causes are attributable to the injuries caused,
then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death,
even if death was not the direct result of the injuries. [Para 66(e)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - The Courts to distinguish two types
of cases i.e. first where the intervening cause of death, like
peritonitis, is only a remote consequence of the injury and
second where the complication which is the intervening cause
of death is itself a practically inevitable sequence to the injury:
Held: Broadly speaking, the courts would have to undertake the
exercise to distinguish between two types of cases; first, where
the intervening cause of death, like peritonitis, is only a remote
and a 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 it - Secondly, where the complication which
is the intervening cause of death is itself a practically inevitable
214
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sequence to the injury - In that event, the probability is very high
indeed, amounting to practical certainty i.e., death is a result in
due course of natural events - A deep abdominal thrust with a
knife followed by injury to the internal organs is practically certain
to result in acute peritonitis causing death - It is clearly a case of
murder u/s.302 and not merely of culpable homicide. [Para 66(f)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.300 - The Courts are to always look into
the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased
and infer whether assailants intended to cause death of the
deceased, irrespective of the medical evidence:
Held: 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. [Para 66(g)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.300 - What is significant is whether
death was only a remote possibility, or is one which would
have occurred in due course:
Held: 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. [Para 66(h)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.300 - When the death is delayed due
to later complications - The Courts must consider the nature
of the injury, complications or the attending circumstances:
Held: 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
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
215
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
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 actually caused by a complication naturally flowing
from the injury and not the injury itself, since causal connection
is proximate. [Para 66(i)]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 and s.307 - Allegation that appellant
along with the other co-accused threw victim-deceased from
the terrace of the house and thereafter assaulted him with sticks
and fisticuffs - Victim died after nine months from the date
of incident on account of septicemia and pneumonia leading
to cardiorespiratory arrest - In such circumstances, s.302 of
IPC was added - Trial Court convicted appellant and the coaccused for the offence of murder and were sentenced to life
imprisonment - However, the High Court altered the conviction
of the appellant herein and the other co-accused from s.302
of the IPC to one u/s.307 of the IPC and sentenced them to
undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment - Correctness:
Held: In the present case, as per the oral testimony of the
three doctors referred, the cause of death of deceased-R 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 s.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 alter the culpability -
In the case in hand, there had been no such considerable change of
circumstances as to snap the chain of causation - The High Court
erred in recording the 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 - 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 is erroneous - The High Court committed
a serious error in bringing the case within the ambit of attempt to
commit murder punishable u/s.307 of the IPC. [Paras 67, 68, 70]
216
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Penal Code, 1860 - s.307 - Ingredients to constitute the offence
of attempt to commit murder:
Held: The most important ingredient to constitute the offence
of attempt to commit murder punishable u/s.307 of the IPC is
the intention or knowledge - To bring home guilt against an
accused under this provision, it is necessary for the prosecution
to establish that the intention of the accused was one of the
three kinds mentioned in s.300 of the IPC - A person commits
an offence u/s.307 of the IPC when he has the intention to
commit murder and in pursuance of that intention, does an act
towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act
is the penultimate act or not - The provision requires that the
act must be done with such intention, or knowledge, or in such
circumstances that if death be caused by that act, the offence
of murder will emerge. [Para 30]
Case Law Cited
Prasad Pradhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh [2023] 1 SCR
241 : (2023) 11 SCC 320; Patel Hiralal Joitaram v. State of Gujarat
[2001] Supp. 4 SCR 378 : (2002) 1 SCC 22; State of Haryana v.
Pala & Ors. [1996] 1 SCR 1022 : (1996) 8 SCC 51; Jagtar Singh
& Anr. v. State of Punjab (1999) 2 SCC 174 - relied on.
Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi [1975] 2 SCR 520 : (1975) 3
SCC 831 - referred to.
Sreedharan v. State of Kerala, 1969 SCC OnLine Ker 46;
Emperor v. Vasudeo Balwant Gogte, 1932 SCC OnLine Bom 1;
In re, Maragatham (Madras High Court); In re, Periaswami
C.A. 166 of 1961 (Mad); Nga Moe v. The King, AIR 1941 Rang
141; In re, Doraswami, 1943 SCC OnLine Mad 208 - referred to.
Reg. v. Cassidy (1867) 4 Bom. H.C. (Cr. C.) 17; R. v. Whybrow,
1951-35-Crl. Appl. 141; R v. Grimwood 1962-(3)-AER. 285; Director
of Public Prosecutions v. Smith, 1961-AC. 290; Brintons Ltd. v.
Turvey, 1905 AC 230, 233, the Earl of Halsbury L.C.; R. v. Holland
(1841) 2 M and Rob 351; (1904) 1 Cri LJ 909 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals
Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, 11th
Edn. Vol. 1, at page 232; The Essentials of Modern Surgery by
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
217
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Handfield Jones and Pokitt, V Edn]; Mayne's Criminal Law of India,
4th Edn., at p. 477; Male's Pleas of the Crown, Volume I, page
28; Russel on Crime, 12th Edn., Vol. 1 at page 28 - referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Section 307 of IPC; Section 300 of IPC; Section 302 of IPC; First
limb of s.300 of IPC; Thirs limb of s.300 of IPC; Fourth limb of
s.300 of IPC; Fatal injury; Intention to cause death; Death occurring
after several days; Septic shock with bilateral pneumonia; Post
traumatic spinal cord injury with paraplegia and infected bedsore
hepatic dysfunction; Medical treatment; Supervening causes;
Injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
5578 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2024 of the High Court
of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 607 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Padmesh Mishra, Ms. Vastvikta Bhardwaj, Ms. Neelam Singh,
Vijant.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Shivam Ganeshia, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Ambuj
Swaroop, Kapil Katare, Prashant Singh, Ms. Rajnandani Kumari.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts:-
218
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX .....................................................................
2
B.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ...............
3
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
4
D.
ANALYSIS ..................................................................................
5
i.
When is an offence said to be made under Section 307 of
the IPC ........................................................................
12
ii.
Application of Theory of Causation where death ensues after
some delay .............................................................
23
E.
CONCLUSION ......................................................................
39
1.
This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused and is directed
against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh dated 30.07.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2023
(hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgment") by which the High
Court partly allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant herein
and altered the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") into one under Section 307
of the IPC.
2.
It appears from the 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 No. 21 of 2022 arising
from the First Information Report bearing No. 0061 of 2022 dated
22.02.2022 registered with the Saja Police Station, District Bemetara,
State of Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 458,
294, 506(B) and 323 of the IPC respectively.
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3.
It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful day of the incident
the appellant herein along with three other co-accused trespassed
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
219
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
into the house of the deceased and dragged him upto the terrace of
the house and flung him down. After the deceased was thrown down
from the terrace, the appellant and other co-accused assaulted him
with sticks and fisticuffs. The injured was shifted to the hospital in a
very critical condition. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded
vide Ex. P-22 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.
4.
It appears that the injured Rekhchand Verma survived for about nine
months from the date of the alleged incident. Ultimately, he died
on 08.11.2022 on account of septicemia and pneumonia leading
to cardiorespiratory arrest. In such circumstances, Section 302 of
the IPC came to be added. The case was committed to the Court
of Session. At the end of the trial, the appellant and the three coaccused came to be convicted of the offence of murder and were
sentenced to life imprisonment.
5.
The appellant herein along with co-accused, namely, Rupesh Kumar
Sahu preferred Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2023 in the High Court
whereas the Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2023 was preferred by
Gulsan Sinha and Criminal Appeal No. 1151 of 2024 was preferred
by one Chavendra Patel.
6.
All the three criminal appeals referred to above were heard by
the High Court and those were partly allowed vide the Impugned
Judgment and order passed by the High Court. As stated above,
the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant herein and
the other co-accused from Section 302 of the IPC to one under
Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 7 years of
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
7.
In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant Maniklal Sahu
is here before us with the present appeal.
B.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
8.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently
submitted that the High Court ought to have acquitted the appellant
herein of all charges rather than altering the conviction from one
under Section 302 IPC to Section 307 IPC. The principal contention
canvassed on behalf of the appellant herein is that the cause of death
has no nexus with the injuries suffered by the deceased at the time
220
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the alleged assault on him. In other words, the learned counsel
laid much stress on the fact that the injured died after about nine
months from the date of the incident. Second argument canvassed
on behalf of the appellant is, that the eyewitnesses are not reliable
witnesses. They are interested witnesses being PW-1 Satish Verma,
brother of the deceased; PW-11 Vikas Verma, another brother of the
deceased; and PW-12 Gautahiri Bai Verma, mother of the deceased. It
was argued that they had no occasion to witness the alleged assault.
9.
In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant would submit that there being merit in
his appeal, the same may be allowed and the appellant may be
acquitted of all the charges.
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State,
while vehemently opposing this appeal, submitted that the High Court
committed a serious error in altering the conviction under Section 302
of the IPC into one of attempt to commit murder punishable under
Section 307 of the IPC.
11. However, the learned counsel fairly submitted that the State has not
preferred any acquittal appeal in this regard. In such circumstances,
he submitted that let the conviction of the appellant herein for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC be maintained.
D.
ANALYSIS
12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any
error in passing the Impugned Judgment and order?
13. We do not propose to reappreciate the entire oral evidence on record.
We have looked into the oral testimonies of PW-1 Satish Verma,
brother of the deceased; PW-11 Vikas Verma, another brother of the
deceased; and PW-12 Gautahiri Bai Verma, mother of the deceased
respectively. They are all eyewitnesses to the incident. There is no
good reason for us to disbelieve or discard their evidence.
14. We only propose to examine in the present appeal whether the High
Court committed any error in bringing the case within the ambit of
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
221
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
"attempt to commit murder" punishable under Section 307 IPC on the
ground that the deceased Rekhchand Verma died after a period of
nine months from the date of the incident. Unfortunately, the exercise
which we propose to undertake is ultimately going to be academic as
there is no acquittal appeal filed at the instance of the State. However,
we should not ignore or overlook the gross error committed by the
High Court. We must explain, why the High Court is wrong in its view.
15. We must start with the medical evidence on record. The prosecution
examined PW-9 Dr. Sheetal Kaushal. Dr. Sheetal Kaushal in his
examination-in-chief has deposed under:-
01- "I was posted as Medical Officer at Community Health
Centre Saja from 22.06.2020 to 16.06.2022.
02- On 22.02.2022 at 11.14 pm, the injured Rekhachand
Verma, son of Radheshyam Verma, age 19 years, resident
of Boratra, Police Station Saja, was brought to me for
examination by constable Indraman Nishad number 274
of Police Station Saja at Community Health Center Saja,
in which, during his examination, I found that:
1.
The said injured person said that he was pushed
down from the roof and beaten up and the condition
of the said injured person was serious and his blood
pressure was very low. The said injured person was
in a semiconscious state and the smell of alcohol
was coming from his mouth.
2. The above injured person had a lacerated wound
measuring 8 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm in the temporal parietal
region of his head, which was bleeding profusely.
3. The above patient was having pain in his throat and
was having difficulty in moving his throat. I had advised
him to get an X-ray done and also advised him to get his
head checked by a neurosurgeon.
4. The injury was very serious so the correct opinion about
the nature of the injury could have been given only after
examination by a neurosurgeon and a radiologist. The
condition of the patient was so serious that I advised him
to be immediately taken to a higher centre.
222
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5. The above injuries sustained by the above victim can be
caused by falling from the roof and hitting the head with a
hard or blunt object and the nature of the said injury can
be determined only after treatment by the NCCT head and
neurosurgeon and radiologist. In this regard, the medical
examination report prepared by me is Ex.P. 06, part of
which is signed by me.
03- On 25.02.2022, I was informed by the police station
in-charge Saja by sending a memorandum that the injured
Rekhachand Verma was referred to a higher center for
advanced treatment and NCCT Head, Neurosurgery,
Cervical X-ray was advised, who was admitted to Mekahara
Raipur on 23.02.2022, then to DKS Hospital Raipur and
on 24.02.2022 he was admitted from DKS Hospital to
MMI Hospital Raipur, where the victim is admitted in ICU.
Whose MRI scan has been done, the part below the waist
of the injured has become numb, due to which there is a
possibility of spinal cord fracture, so give opinion on the
following two points1. What is the nature of the injury suffered by the
victim?
2. Was it possible for the injured person to die due
to the injury?
I had written in reply to the above questions that, 1) "The
nature of injury can only be determined by a Radiologist
and Neurophysician and Neurosurgeon." and 2) "Yes, it was
possible." The Curie report prepared by me in this regard
is Ex.P. 07, which bears my signatures on parts A to A.
04- On 24,03,2022, the police station in-charge Saja sent a
sealed stick along with a memorandum for testing and asked1. Could the injury sustained by Rekhachand Verma
have been caused by the confiscated stick?
2. Are there blood stains on the said stick?
3. Any other opinions?
I had examined the sealed stick along with the above
mentioned memorandum sent by the police station
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
223
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
in-charge Saja, whose length and size I have mentioned
by drawing its picture and after examining the said stick,
my opinion is that 1) "Such injuries can be inflicted on the
injured Rekhachand with this type of stick." and 2) "I did
not find any blood stains on the stick." In this regard, the
query report prepared by me is Ex.P. 08, which bears my
signatures on parts A to A."
There is practically no cross examination of Dr. Sheetal Kaushal.
16. We now look into the evidence of Dr. Twinkle Chandrakar, PW-24.
Dr. Chandrakar in her examination-in-chief has deposed as under:-
"01- I am posted as Assistant Professor in Sri Sankaracharya
Institute of Medical Science, Junwani Bhilai, District-Durg
(CO) for the last two years.
02- On 21.10.2022 at 10:35 P.M. the injured/deceased
Rekhchand Lodhi father Radheshyam Verma age 22
years resident Boratara Tehsil Saja District Bemetara was
brought to me for treatment at Shankaracharya Institute of
Medical Science, Junwani Bhilai Hospital. On examining
him I found that01. The condition of the said injured was very serious
and he had no movement and sensation in both his
legs due to which he was unable to walk and he
had trouble breathing and his blood pressure was
very low, he was not urinating and he was suffering
from vomiting and diarrhea and he also had fever.
The said injured had movement in both his hands.
02. There was a wound in the hip of the injured
person which was filled with pus.
03. The injured person had weakness in both his
hands and legs. The injured person had anaemia
and there was swelling in his body.
04. The said injured person was being given oxygen
with the help of a ventilator and medicines were being
given to maintain blood pressure and due to blood
loss, blood was transfused and antibiotics were given
and the wound on his hip was being treated.
224
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
05. The patient's condition was not satisfactory and
the patient was becoming unstable.
03- I had admitted the said injured/ deceased on 22.10.2022
in Shankaracharya Hospital Junwani, who died during
treatment on 08.11.2022 due to Septic shock with bilateral
pneumonia with post traumatic spinal cord injury with
paraplegia with infected bedsore with hepatic dysfunction.
The entire treatment of the said deceased Rekhachand
was done by the medicine unit of the hospital under my
guidance and his discharge summary has been prepared
by Junior Doctor Richa Sharma, which is , Ex.P. 28, on
which my signature is on part A and my seal and seal are
on parts B to B. Along with the said discharge certificate,
the photocopy of the entire bedhead ticket related to the
treatment of the said deceased in our hospital is of total
137 pages and a death certificate was issued by our
hospital in relation to the death of the above deceased,
the death certificate is Ex.P. 29, on which my signature is
on part A to A and my seal and seal are on parts B to B.
04- On 29.11.2022, the police station in-charge of police
station Saja sent letter no. / Th.Pr. / Saja / 702-A / 2022
regarding providing opinion by curating the discharge
certificate and bedhead ticket of deceased Rekhachand
Lodhi. In crime number 61/2022 of police station Saja and
asked the following question1. On the night of 22.02.2022 at about 8 o'clock, the
accused beat up Rekhachand Verma with sticks and
fists and threw him from the roof onto the CC road
with the intention of killing him, due to which his spine
was fractured. The deceased died during treatment
at Shankaracharya Hospital on 08.11.2022. Did the
deceased die due to fracture in his spine?
2. If deceased Rekhachand died due to some other
reason, please give your clear opinion?
05- In order to answer the said query, after examining
the discharge certificate of deceased Rekhachand and
the bed head ticket related to his treatment, I have given
this statement that, 1) In the history of the said injured, on
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
225
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
22.02.2022, due to spinal cord injury, there was paraplegia
and the said deceased had weakness in both hands and
legs due to which the patient became bedridden and
there was infection in the wound of his hip, due to which
it is possible that the death of patient Rekhachand was
due to spinal cord injury. 2) While answering the query
question number 02 of the police station incharge, I have
written such an opinion in my query report Ex. P. 30
which is the memorandum of the police station in-charge
dated 29.11.2022 on the page that, A-Septic shock with
Bilateral Pneumonia. B-Post traumatic Spinal Cord injury
with Paraplegia infected bedsore hepatic dysfunction. That
is, the patient Rekhachand died due to the same reason
which I have mentioned in the answer to query question
no. 01. My signature is on parts A to A of the query report
Ex. P. 30."
Once again, there is practically no cross examination of Dr. Twinkle
Chandrakar.
17. In the last, we should look into the oral evidence of Dr. Abhishek
Shrivastava, PW-28. Dr. Abhishek Shrivastava in his examinationin-chief has deposed as under:-
"01- I am posted as Senior Medical Officer In Government
Hospital, Supela Bhilai, District Durg from 01.01.2021 till
date.
02- On 09.11.2022 at 12:30 PM, deceased Rekhchand
Radheshyam Lodhi, age 22 years, resident of Boratara,
District Bemetara, was presented from Shankaracharya
Hospital, father late Junwani, District Durg, for postmortem by constable number 484 Evan Baghel of Police
Outpost Smriti Nagar Police Station Supela, to Government
Hospital, Supela Bhilai, District Durg. The said body was
identified by Satish Lodhi, Rajendra Yadu and constable
Evan Baghel.
03- The postmortem of the said dead body was started
by me on 09.11.2022 at 12:30 P.M. The said dead body
was of a male, which was wrapped in a white cloth and
was lying straight on the postmortem table. The body of
the said deceased was stiff and cold. There was injury
226
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on the entire back portion of both the thighs of the said
deceased and there was injury on his left ankle as well.
There was bedsore on the entire lower back of the said
deceased, the size of which was 4 x 3 cm.
04- The deceased was of normal height and his skull,
cranium, vertebrae, brain and spinal cord were congested.
There was fluid present in the right and left lungs of the
deceased. There was a clot in the heart of the deceased.
The diaphragm, intestine, mouth and esophagus and
pharynx of the deceased were normal and his spleen,
kidney were pale and urinary bladder was empty and
genitals were normal. There was half-digested food in the
stomach of the deceased and half-digested food and stool
was also present in his small intestine and large intestine.
05- On the basis of the results and experience
obtained from the postmortem of the said deceased
Rekhachand, it is my opinion that the said deceased died
of cardiorespiratory attack due to septic shock, which
was caused by infection of the injuries in the body of
the deceased. The time of death of the said deceased
was between 18 to 36 hours and the injuries found on
the body of the said deceased were before his death
(antemortem). In this regard, the postmortem report
prepared by me is Ex.P. 34, which bears my signatures
on parts A to A, B to B and C to C.
Cross-examination by Shri Balram Sahu, Advocate for
accused Gulshan and Chavendra:-
06- On being asked whether septic shock can occur in the
absence of treatment) the witness said that it is possible
if necessary antibiotics are not given during treatment."
(Emphasis supplied)
There is practically no cross examination of Dr. Abhishek Shrivastava.
18. Thus, the injured was brought to the hospital on 22.02.2022 in a
very critical condition. According to Dr. Kaushal (PW-9), the injured
was in a semi-conscious state. He was bleeding profusely due to a
very serious head injury.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
227
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
19. What is discernable from the medical evidence on record, in the
form of oral testimonies of the three doctors referred to above, and
the documentary evidence in the form of postmortem report and
the injury certificate Exhibit P-34 is that the deceased died due to
complications from paraplegia following spinal cord injury which
resulted in systemic infection and multi-organ failure. Exhibits P-28,
P-29 and P-34 respectively make it clear. It is ultimately the septic
shock resulting from infected pressure sores which in turn arose from
the spinal injury sustained in the incident that proved to be fatal.
20. The deceased also suffered from pneumonia. According to the
medical experts, this pneumonia was the direct result of the long
drawn medical treatment which was given to the deceased over a
period of nine months.
21. All the three medical experts examined by the prosecution are clear
in their oral testimony that the deceased died during treatment
on 08.11.2022 due to septic shock with bilateral pneumonia, post
traumatic spinal cord injury with paraplegia and infected bedsores
leading to hepatic dysfunction. The ocular version of the eyewitnesses
corroborates with medical evidence on record.
22. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, we now proceed to consider the
understanding of the High Court while altering the conviction.
i.
When is an offence said to be made under Section 307 of
the IPC
23. The High Court while altering the conviction under Section 302 to
one under Section 307 of the IPC recorded the following findings
as contained in paragraph 35 of the Impugned Judgment. Para 35
reads thus:-
"35. No doubt, the injuries caused by the appellants to
the deceased were grievous in nature. He died due to
septic shock with bilateral pneumonia with post traumatic
spinal cord injury with paraplegia with infected bedsore
with hepatic dysfunction. Due to spinal cord injury,
there was paraplegia and the deceased had weakness
in both hands and legs, due to which the deceased
became bedridden and there was infection in the wound
of his hip. Due to which, it is probable that the death
of deceased Rekhchand Verma was due to his spinal
228
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
cord injury. Rekhchand Verma was firstly referred to the
Community Health Center, Saja, the doctor there referred
him to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur and from there he was
shifted to DKS Hospital and thereafter he was again
shifted to MMI Narayan Hospital, Raipur and finally he
was shifted to Shankaracharya Hospital, Durg where
he died. As such, due to lack of proper treatment, he
died after about 9 months of the incident. Therefore, the
case of the appellants falls within the purview of Section
307 of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC.
Even otherwise, the trial Court has already convicted the
appellants for offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC
for the same offence, therefore, there is no necessity to
convict them also for offence under Section 302/34 of
the IPC."
24. We have noticed over a period of time that the courts get confused
while determining the exact nature of offence, more particularly, when
there is a long interval between the date the victim suffered injuries
and the date of his death.
25. We must first look into the relevant provisions of the IPC. Sections
299, 300 and 302 of the IPC respectively read as under:-
"Section 299. Culpable homicide.-Whoever causes death
by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.
xxx
"Explanation 2.-Where death is caused by bodily injury,
the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed
to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper
remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been
prevented."
Section 300. Murder.-Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or-
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
229
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
2ndly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
3rdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk
of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
xxx
Section 302. Punishment for murder.-Whoever commits
murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to fine."
26. To come within the definition of Section 299 IPC, the act of the
accused should cause death and it must be (a) with the intention of
causing death, or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injuries
as is likely to cause death, or (c) with the knowledge that he is likely
by such act to cause death. The question when a person could be
said to have caused death by his act needs to be answered taking
into consideration the Explanations 1 and 2 respectively to Section
299 of the IPC.
27. The simpler case is where death results directly and immediately from
the act itself. Equally, when death ensues as a natural or necessary
consequence flowing from that act, there can be no hesitation in holding
that the act caused the death. For "Thirdly" of Section 300 to apply
the requirement is, that the injury inflicted should be found sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, a high degree of
probability, in the ordinary way of nature, that death would ensue on the
injuries. The difficulty arises when there are recognisable contributory
causes leading to death, and the Court is called upon to consider in
such case the relative effect and strength of the different causes in
bringing about the effect i.e., the death, and then to ascertain whether
the responsibility of the death could be assigned to a particular act
which is not as proximate, or immediate.
230
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
28. Section 307 of the IPC reads as under:-
"Section 307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any
act with such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would
be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused
to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable
either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as
is hereinbefore mentioned."
29. An offence under Section 307 IPC has the following essential
ingredients:-
(i)
The death of a human was attempted;
(ii)
That the death was attempted to be caused, or caused in the
consequence of the act of the accused; and
(iii) That the act was done with the intention of causing death; or that
it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as:
a.
the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or
b.
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by
doing an act known to him to be so dangerous that it must
in all probability cause:
i.
death, or
ii.
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
30. Thus, from the above, the most important ingredient to constitute
the offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section
307 of the IPC is the intention or knowledge. To bring home guilt
against an accused under this provision, it is necessary for the
prosecution to establish that the intention of the accused was one
of the three kinds mentioned in Section 300 of the IPC. A person
commits an offence under Section 307 of the IPC when he has
the intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention,
does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether
that act is the penultimate act or not. The provision requires that
the act must be done with such intention, or knowledge, or in such
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
231
Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
circumstances that if death be caused by that act, the offence of
murder will emerge.
31. It is clear as noonday that causing an injury that would endanger
life is not an essential condition for the applicability of Section 307
of the IPC. Even if the injuries inflicted are simple in nature, that by
itself cannot be a ground for acquittal, if the offence otherwise falls
under Section 307 of the IPC.
32. The word "intent" means design, or determination with which a person
acts. It presupposes knowledge. It is the purpose to use particular
means to effect certain result. The "act" referred in Section 307 of
the IPC attempted to must be with the "intention" of killing a human.
Intention is a state of mind which cannot be proved by direct evidence
as a fact; it can only ordinarily be inferred from proved facts.