The Supreme Court has ruled that when a victim dies after a
lapse of considerable time due to injuries inflicted by an accused, it would
not diminish the liability of the perpetrator in a murder case.
A bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and S.
Ravindra Bhat, said: "There can be no stereotypical assumption or formula
that where death occurs after a lapse of some time, the injuries (which might
have caused the death), the offence is one of culpable homicide. Every case has
its unique fact situation. However, what is important is the nature of injury,
and whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death".
It further added that the adequacy or otherwise of
medical attention is not a relevant factor in this case, because the doctor who
conducted the post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio
respiratory failures, as a result of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased.
"Thus, the injuries and the death were closely
and directly linked."
During the hearing, the appellants' counsel had urged
that the victim died 20 days after the attack, and the lapse of such a time
shows that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature.
The bench noted that there were several judgments,
which emphasize that such a lapse of time, would not per se constitute a
determinative factor as to diminish the offender's liability from the offence
of murder to that of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
The appellants moved the apex court challenging the
Chhattisgarh High Court order,which confirmed their conviction for murder.
According to the police, the accused had attacked the
deceased after he tried to level disputed land with a JCB in February 2012.
After the victim died, a criminal case was registered
against the appellants by the victim's family.
The accused argued that the victim died after about
twenty days from the alleged incident and due complications in surgery,
therefore their alleged acts were not the cause of the death.
The top court noted that the question, then, is
whether the appellants are guilty of the offence of murder, punishable under
Section 302, or whether they are criminally liable under the less severe
Section 304, IPC.
"This court sees no difficulty in accepting that
firstly, the appellants were aggressors; secondly, they attacked the deceased,
with axes; thirdly, the deceased was unarmed," said the bench.
It further added that the doctor who conducted the
post-mortem, stated that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object,
and death of the deceased was due to cardio respiratory failure "as a
result of multiple injuries on his body and their complications".
The top court did not accept appellants contention
that the death was caused unintentionally on account of a "sudden
quarrel".
It said the appellants were armed with axes, which
indicated their pre-mediated intent to harm the deceased.
"The testimonies of the two important
eyewitnesses, establish that when the deceased was levelling the septic tank on
his property, the accused/appellants started abusing him; he asked them not to.
The appellants, who were in the adjacent property, climbed the wall, entered
the deceased's house, and attacked him with axes," said the bench, upholding
the high court order.