By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has firmly established that the lapse of time between injury and death cannot, by itself, justify downgrading a murder charge to an attempt to murder charge. The Court underlined that what matters is whether the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and whether the act was done with the requisite intention.
THE CASE IN BRIEF
In Maniklal Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, clarified the correct application of Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around a brutal assault that led to the victim’s death nine months later from septicemia and pneumonia, complications stemming from spinal cord injuries inflicted by the accused. The Chhattisgarh High Court had controversially downgraded the charge from murder (Section 302 IPC) to attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), reasoning that the victim died due to improper medical treatment months after the assault.
Rejecting this view, the Supreme Court held that such a mechanical reduction is legally unsound. The correct test is not the time gap, but whether the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and whether the injury was inflicted with the intention or knowledge likely to cause death.
Justice Pardiwala, authoring the judgment, emphasized: “The High Court committed a serious error in bringing the case within the ambit of attempt to murder merely because the victim died after a period of nine months. This overlooks the nature of injury and the intention behind the act.”
The Court explicitly stated: “Section 307 IPC is not a fallback for delayed death—if the injury was intended to cause death and is sufficient in the ordinary course to do so, the offence is murder, not attempt.”
THE ASSAULT
- The accused and co-accused dragged the victim to a terrace.
- They threw him onto the concrete ground.
- Even after the fall, they continued to beat him with sticks and fists.
These actions resulted in a spinal cord injury and paraplegia, leading to bedsores, septicemia, and eventual death. The Supreme Court categorically rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the death occurred due to lack of medical treatment, ruling instead that: “The law is clear—Section 307 applies if the act, in the manner done, would have caused murder if death had ensued. In this case, death did ensue, and the act was intended to cause it.”
DOCTRINE OF CAUSATION AND MENS REA
The judgment reinforced that mens rea (criminal intent) is critical for Section 307 IPC. Mere injury, even grievous, does not justify invoking attempt to murder. Instead, the Court explained that intention must be inferred from multiple factors:
- Nature of the weapon.
- Body parts targeted.
- Number and severity of injuries.
- Manner of assault.
The Court reiterated: “An act done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if death is caused, it would be murder, cannot be downgraded to attempt just because the death occurred after a time lag.”
Justice Pardiwala concluded: “Section 307 IPC does not become applicable merely because the death occurred after some delay or due to complications.”
TOWARDS CONSISTENT JUSTICE
The judgment aims to clear long-standing judicial confusion regarding the distinction between Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). It ensures that courts focus on intention, injury severity, and causation rather than the timing of death. The verdict will likely be a key reference point in future criminal trials.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi