The Bombay High Court has affirmed that a conviction under Section 302 IPC remains valid even when death occurs days after the assault due to septicemia, provided the infection is a direct and natural consequence of the injuries inflicted. This judgment reinforces the principle that the chain of causation is not broken by intervening medical complications unless an independent, supervening cause is established.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Nagesh s/o Prabhakar Ahire, was charged with the murder of Sanjay Roy, who succumbed to injuries sustained during an altercation on 20.10.2017. The prosecution alleged that the appellant attacked Sanjay Roy with a knife, inflicting multiple stab wounds to the abdomen and other vital areas. Sanjay Roy was admitted to a hospital on the same day and underwent emergency surgery. He died on 27.10.2017, seven days after the assault, due to septicemia arising from the internal injuries.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 20.10.2017 at approximately 8:00 PM at the residence of Sanjay Roy in Chandrapur.
- The appellant allegedly abused Sanjay Roy in filthy language, leading to a confrontation.
- Sanjay Roy attempted to pacify the appellant, but the appellant suddenly attacked him, dragging him down and stabbing him multiple times in the abdomen and back.
- Sanjay Roy’s son, Sahil, intervened with a stick, striking the appellant on the head, which allowed Sanjay to be freed.
- Sanjay Roy was immediately taken to a private hospital and admitted on 20.10.2017.
- He underwent exploratory laparotomy on 20.10.2017, during which five stab wounds were identified: one each in the stomach, transverse colon, and jejunum, with 500 ml of homo-purulent fluid in the peritoneal cavity.
- He remained in critical condition with signs of haemoperitoneum, abdominal pain, and respiratory distress.
- He died on 27.10.2017.
- A post-mortem was conducted on 28.10.2017 by PW8 Dr. Bhalerao.
- The post-mortem report (Exh.61) recorded multiple surgical wounds from laparotomy and drainage tubes, and concluded the cause of death as "septicemia in an operated case of stab injury to abdomen."
- The deceased’s blood group was A, and he received AB+ blood during transfusion - a fact raised by the defence as a possible cause of death.
- A counter case (CR No. 1473/2017) was registered against Sanjay Roy and his son under Section 326 IPC, alleging assault on the appellant.
- The appellant sustained injuries to his head during the scuffle, as corroborated by medical records.
Procedural History
- 20.10.2017: Incident occurs; Crime No. 1471/2017 registered under Sections 307, 294, 504, 506 IPC.
- 27.10.2017: Sanjay Roy dies; Section 302 IPC added to the charge.
- 28.10.2017: Post-mortem conducted.
- 15.12.2017: Charge-sheet filed before the Magistrate.
- 05.01.2018: Case committed to Sessions Court.
- 10.02.2018: Charges framed under Sections 302, 504, 509 IPC.
- 17.03.2021: Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, convicts appellant under Section 302 IPC and acquits him under Sections 504 and 509 IPC; sentences him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.
- 17.03.2021: Judgment pronounced.
- 08.04.2026: Present appeal decided by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant: The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the causal link between the assault and death, as septicemia could have resulted from medical negligence or incompatible blood transfusion. He contended that the testimony of PW1 (widow) and PW2 (son) was unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased, and that PW3 (independent witness) did not fully corroborate the ocular version. He further argued that the delay in death and absence of a dying declaration weakened the prosecution case.
For the Respondent/State: The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the medical evidence conclusively established that septicemia was a direct consequence of the stab wounds penetrating the abdominal cavity. He emphasized that the ocular testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW3 was consistent, natural, and corroborated by the post-mortem findings. He rejected the theory of medical negligence as speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (1) setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC; (2) reduction of the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC; (3) release from custody after nine years of incarceration; and (4) costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the death of Sanjay Roy, occurring seven days after the assault due to septicemia, could still be attributed to the appellant’s actions under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, or whether the intervening medical complications broke the chain of causation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. and B.N. Kavatakar v. State of Karnataka to argue that a delay in death due to septicemia may break the causal link if medical treatment is suspected to have contributed. He contended that the administration of AB+ blood to a blood group A patient could have triggered a fatal transfusion reaction, and that the absence of a dying declaration cast doubt on the prosecution’s version. He further argued that the testimony of PW1 and PW2, being interested witnesses, was inherently suspect and required corroboration beyond reasonable doubt.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor relied on Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Brahm Swaroop v. State of Uttar Pradesh to argue that septicemia arising from penetrating abdominal injuries is a natural and probable consequence, not an independent cause. He emphasized that the medical evidence uniformly attributed the septicemia to the stab wounds, and that no evidence of medical negligence or transfusion incompatibility was presented. He further submitted that the relationship of PW1 and PW2 did not render their testimony unreliable, as their accounts were consistent and corroborated by an independent witness.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of both ocular and medical evidence. It held that the testimonies of PW1 (widow), PW2 (son), and PW3 (independent witness) were mutually consistent in describing the appellant’s act of stabbing the deceased with a knife. The Court emphasized that relationship alone does not disqualify a witness’s testimony, citing Brahm Swaroop v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra. The Court noted that PW1 and PW2 were present at the scene and had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
"The evidence of the eye-witnesses is further supported by the medical evidence, which shows that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by a sharp-edged weapon like a knife. This lends further corroboration to the prosecution case."
The Court then turned to the medical evidence. It found that the post-mortem report and testimony of PW6 (surgeon) and PW8 (forensic expert) conclusively established that the septicemia was a direct sequel of the stab wounds. The presence of homo-purulent fluid, perforations in the stomach and intestines, and the timing of the septicemia’s onset all pointed to a natural progression from the injuries.
"Septicemia in the present case was a sequel of the injuries sustained by the deceased. No material has been brought on record to establish any independent intervening cause."
The Court rejected the defence’s theory of incompatible blood transfusion, noting that the clinical features of acute hemolytic reaction - such as immediate fever, hypotension, and hemoglobinuria - were absent from the medical records. In contrast, the symptoms described were consistent with progressive septicemia, which develops over days.
The Court also distinguished Dashrath Singh and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal Singh, clarifying that those cases involved proven medical negligence. Here, no such negligence was established. The Court applied the principles from Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, holding that where complications are a natural and probable consequence of the injury, the chain of causation remains intact.
"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."
The Court concluded that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, satisfying the third limb of Section 300 IPC. The trial court’s findings were neither perverse nor illegal.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The judgment and order dated 17.03.2021 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, confirming the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, was upheld. The appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment remains in force, and the fine of ₹5,000 shall be paid within eight weeks; in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Causal Chain Survives Medical Complications
- Practitioners must argue that septicemia, peritonitis, or organ failure following penetrating injuries are not independent causes but natural consequences under Section 302 IPC.
- The burden shifts to the defence to prove an independent, supervening cause - mere speculation about medical negligence is insufficient.
- Courts will rely on the totality of medical evidence, not isolated symptoms, to determine causation.
Related Witnesses Are Not Automatically Discredited
- Evidence from spouses or children of victims cannot be rejected solely on grounds of relationship.
- Courts must assess credibility based on consistency, corroboration, and plausibility, as per Baban Shankar Daphal and Dalip Singh.
- The distinction between "related" and "interested" witnesses is critical - the former are often the most reliable.
Medical Evidence Must Be Interpreted Holistically
- Minor discrepancies in witness accounts do not invalidate the core narrative if supported by medical findings.
- The absence of a dying declaration is not fatal if other evidence is robust.
- Expert testimony must be evaluated in context - septicemia as a cause of death is legally significant only if linked to the original injury.
