Holding

The Supreme Court held that the grievous head injury caused by a sharp weapon was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, establishing the requisite causation for murder under Section 302 IPC, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Summary

The case arose from a land dispute in which Hari Yadav and others assaulted Chander Dusadh on 11 August 1981, inflicting a sharp blow to the head and other injuries. Dusadh was hospitalized and died on 1 September 1981. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, sentencing Hari Yadav to ten years' rigorous imprisonment; the Patna High Court enhanced the term to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the injury was sufficient to cause death, whether the 20‑day gap broke the causal chain, and whether the possibility of a blunt‑instrument injury or the unproven hospital‑note could undermine the conviction. Relying on the autopsy report that identified a grievous head injury likely caused by a sharp weapon and on the principle that a single injury sufficient to cause death satisfies the elements of murder, the Court rejected the appellant's contentions. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and life sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the injury inflicted by the appellant was sufficient to cause death, thereby satisfying the elements of murder under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the lapse of twenty days between the assault and the victim's death breaks the causal link required for conviction under Section 302.
Whether the possibility that the fatal injury could have been caused by a blunt instrument undermines the prosecution's case.
Whether the note alleging that the deceased left the hospital without the doctor's knowledge is admissible and can affect the finding of causation.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 323

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCcausationmedical evidencepost‑mortemland disputeassaultlife imprisonmentforensic evidence

Judgment

A HARIYADAV •
v.
STATE OF BIHAR

DECEMBER 14, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-s. 302-Conviction under-Dispute between
parties, leading to assaults on deceased resulting in his death-
c Conviction by courts below, however, High Court altering I 0 years
rigorous imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for life-Case of
accused that deceased died 20 days after the incident, thus conviction
not sustainable-On appeal, held: Accused came prepared at the place
of incident-Repeated assaults were made and also other witnesses
D suffered injuries-Grievous injury suffered by deceased which was
likely to be caused by sharp weapon was sufficient to cause death in ->

ordinary course ofnature- Mere possibility ofinjury being caused by "'
hard and blunt substance cannot be a ground to disbelieve ocular
evidence-Further, submission that deceased left hospital 5 days before
E his death without any information to the doctor cannot be accepted-
Moreso submission was made on basis ofpaper which appeared in case
diary on which reliance cannot be placed-Hence, order ofHigh Court
upheld.
According to the prosecution case, there was land dispute
F between the parties. On 11.08.1981 quarrel arose between KY and .,.(
CD. KY exhorted other accused to eliminate CD. Appellant inflicted
a farsa blow on the head of CD and KY gave a blow on his hand by
hard and blunt object. Other accused assaulted one KD. Accused
also resorted to firing. CD became unconscious and was admitted
G to the hospital. FIR was lodged. PW 1, 3, 5 and 6 deposed in regard
to the mode and manner in which the incident took place. PW 8- ..I-
doctor conducted the post mortem. CD died on 01.09.1981. All the
accused were held guilty of committing respective offences.

H 780
HARIYADAVv. STATE 781
.ll
Appellant was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under A
' section 302 IPC. High Court dismissed the appeal, however, imposed
rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It was not a case where there was a sudden fight. B
The accused came prepared at the place of occurrence. An altercation
--,.. might have taken place but not only repeated assaults were made,
other witnesses also suffered in.juries. [Para 21] [787-A-B]
Kailash v. State ofMP, (2006) 9 SCALE 681, relied on.
c
1.2. Presence of the appellant at the scene of the incident is
beyond any dispute. The autopsy surgeon in his evidence while
proving his report, identified three injuries appearing on the person
of the deceased. Injury No.1 was found to be grievous in nature and
dangerous to life which was likely to be caused by sharp weapon such D
...._
·~
as Jars a whereas other injuries which were simple in nature could
have been caused by hard and blunt object (may be lathi). He was
of the categorical opinion that the injury No.1, in ordinary course of
nature, was sufficient to cause death. [Para 12] [785-B-C]
Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology by Modi 22nd Edition, E
referred to.
1.3. The submission that such an injury can be caused by hard
and blunt substance may be correct in view of the statements made
' -)... by the autopsy surgeon but merely because there is a possibility in
F
regard thereto, the same by itself cannot be a ground for holding
that ocular evidence should be disbelieved. [Para 20) [786-G)
1.4. The submission that the deceased left hospital on 27.8.1981
without any information to the doctor cannot be accepted. The fact
that the deceased died in the District Hospital is not in dispute. The G
Doctor himself suggested that there was no provision for treatment
),-
"" of such patients at Sherghatti. Evidently, therefore, the relatives of
the deceased took him to the District Hospital for better treatment.
For the said purpose, the consent of the doctor might not have been
H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A taken or brought to the personal knowledge of the doctor
concerned. [Paras 16 and 17] [786-A-BJ •
1.5. It is, however, significant that the quotation that the
deceased has developed unomiplagia and had left the hospital on
27.8.1981 without the knowledge of undersigned, was made from the
B purported note made by somebody which formed part of the case
diary. The said document was not proved. Attention of the
investigating officer was not drawn thereto. No such question
appears to have been raised before the High Court. It cannot be
understood as to how reliance was placed thereupon on the basis of
C a piece of paper which appeared in the case diary. Such a practice is
deprecated. The doctor used the word "unomiplagia". It is not been
found as to what it means in the medical dictionary.
[Para 18) [786-C-E]
1.6. Deposition of the doctor who was examined before the
0
Sessions Judge was not brought on record by the appellants. The
reason therefor appears as obvious. Several unsustainable pleas
were raised before the Trial Court on behalf of the appellant.
[Para 19) (786-E-FJ
E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1721 of2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.1.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Cr!. Appeal No. 341/1991.
Sushi! Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant.
F
Gopal Singh for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
G 1. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a
judgment dated 21st January, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of the
Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 1991 arising out of the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2nd September, 1991 passed
by Additional District and Sessions Judge Xlth, Gaya, in Sessions Trial
H No. 12of1991.
HARI YADAV v. STATE [SINHA, J.] 783

"' 2. A land dispute arose between the accused and the prosecution A
•
witnesses in relation to a piece ofland bearing plot No. 1/555 of village
Gamahariya. While measurement of the said land was going on, both the
parties, viz., Kameshwar Yadav and Chander Dusadh, claimed their right
thereupon, on the basis of purchases made by them under their respective
registered deeds of sale. B
3. A quarrel ensued between both the parties. Kameshwar Yadav
exhorted others to eliminate Chander Dusadh. It was followed by an assault
on Kali Dusadh by a hard and blunt object by him. Jaldhari Yadav
assaulted Kali Dusadh on his right arm. ParmeshwarYadav assaulted him
on his back. Appellant herein inflicted a Jars a blow on the head of c
Chander Dusadh, the deceased. Kameshwar Yadav gave another blow
on his hand by a hard and blunt object. As alarm was raised by Kali
Dusadh, whereupon assailants fled from the field. They allegedly resorted
to firing also.
D
:-- 4. Thereafter, injured Chander Dusadh was taken to the Police
Station in an unconscious state.
5. A First Information Report in regard to the said incident was
lodged at 10 pm on 1lth August, 1981. Appellant amongst others was
named therein. The prosecution during trial examined a number of E
witnesses in support of its case. PW 1, Bisu Bhuiya categorically stated
about infliction of garassa blow by Hari Yadav and lathi blow by
Kameshwar Yadav on the deceased. Role played by Kameshwar Yadav,
Kishun Yadav, Hari Yadav, Parmeshwar Yadav, Bhuja Yadav, Rohan
Yadav and Gopal Yadav in inflicting injuries on Kali Dusadh were also F
categorically stated by him in his deposition.
6. Similarly, Barat Dusadh (P.W 3) deposed about the role played
by the Appellant in inflicting afarsa blow on the head of Chander Dusadh,
having been exhorted to do so by his father. He not only stated in details G
1
in regard to the mode and manner in which the incident took place but
> also the cause thereof. Similar is the evidence of Aminullah Khan {PW
5) and Gazi Khijer Heyat (P.W 6).
7. P.W. 8 Dr. M.K. Sinha, who conducted the post mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased, in his report noticed three H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A ante mortem injuries which are as under: "
"(i) Recently healed liner wound oflength 4" over top of head.
On dissection underlined tissues were found infiltrated with blackish
blood clot. There was fracture of both parietal bones. On removal
of skull cap, there was presence of extradural and subdural
B haemotoma over superior surface of both cerebral hemisphere.
Brain and meninges were found grossly congested.
(ii) Healed abrasion over front of lower on part of the right knee
with presence of dry, black scale over the area, size 1-114' x Yi'.
c (iii) Swelling over antero lateral aspect of right arm upper part
size 2-112" circumference."
8. On analyzing the materials brought on records, the Learned
Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of commission of offence under
D Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Judge, however, while
considering the facts and circumstances of each of the accused at the time ,,. /

of occurrence imposed a sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to accused Kameshwar
Yadav and Hari Yadav and one year's rigorous imprisonment to Jaldhari
Y
E adav and Parmeshwar Yadav and Kameshwar Yadav under Section 323
of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Three Criminal Appeals were preferred by the accused persons.
The High Court dismissed the said appeals, but keeping in view the fact
that the Learned Sessions Judge committed a serious error in imposing
F the punishment of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment for commission of an
offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, imposed the sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant is, thus, before us.
I 0. Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
G of the appellant, inter alia, would submit that the occurrence having taken
place on 11.8. i 981 and the death of deceased having taken place on
1. 9.1981, the appellant cannot be stated to have committed any offence ·• •
under Section 302. It was pointed that according to the Doctor, the
deceased left the hospital on 27.8.1981 without his permission and thus
H he might have died of some other disease in between the period 27.8.1981
HARIYADAVv. STATE[SINHA,J.] 785

and 1.9 .1981. The Learned Counsel submitted that keeping in view the A
injuries suffered by the deceased, the same were possibly caused by a
lathi.
11. Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
state on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.
.B
12. Presence of the appellant at the scene of the incidence is beyond
any dispute. The autopsy surgeon in his evidence while proving his report,
identified three injuries appearing on the person of the deceased. Injury
No. 1 was found to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life which
was likely to be caused by sharp weapon such as farsa whereas other c
injuries which were simple in nature could have been caused by hard and
blunt object (may be lathi). He was of the categorical opinion that the
injury No. l, in ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death.
13. In cross examination his attention was drawn to the book
"Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (22nd Edition). In answer D
to a question, he stated:
"Linier abrasion can be possible by lathi as well. Volunteers it
can also be caused by sharp weapon. If the margin of the wound
is sharp, it is inferred that it was caused by sharp weapon." E
14. We may notice that it was categorically stated by the said witness
that there was no provision for treatment of such injury and such cases
are ordinarily referred to neuro surgeon at Ranchi.
15. It appears that on 27.8.1981, a report was sent that deceased F
died in Gaya hospital on 1.9 .1981.
16. Our attention has been drawn to one slip attached to the said
report wherein a prayer was made for insertion of Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code in the said case, which reads as under:
G
"In continuation oflnjury Report of Chandra Gorait of Singh
) Pokhar, Sherghati I have to inform you that he has developed
unomiplagia and he left the hospital on 27 .8.1981 without the
knowledge of undersigned. He has not submitted x-ray ofright
hand till now. This is for information and necessary action." H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

r-
A 17. Submission of the learned senior counsel Sh. Sushi! Kumar is
that the decea~ed left hospital on 27.8.1981 without any information to •
the doctor therefore, cannot be accepted. The fact that the deceased died
in the District Hospital is not in dispute. We have noticed hereinbefore
that the Doctor himself suggested that there was no provision for treatment
B of such patients at Sherghatti. Evidently, therefore, the relatives of the
deceased took him to the Distric.t Hospital for better treatment. For the
said purpose, the consent of the doctor might not have been taken or
brought to the personal knowledge of the doctor concerned.
18. It is, however, significant that the aforementioned quotation was
c made from the purported note made by somebody which formed part of
the case diary. The said document was not proved. Attention of the
investigating officer was not drawn thereto. No such question appears to
have been raised before the High court. We are really at a loss to
understand as to how reliance has been placed thereupon on the basis of
D a piece of paper which appeared in the case diary. We deprecate such a
,
practice. "
It may be of some interest to notice that Dr. S.P. Gupta has used
the word "unomiplagia". We have not been able to find what it means in
E the medical dictionary.
19. Deposition of Dr. S.P. Gupta who was examined before the
Learned Sessions Judge as PW 10 has not been brought on record by
the appellants. The reason therefor appears to us as obvious. Several
unsustainable pleas have been raised before the Trial Court on behalf of
F the appellant. It appears that at one point of time a plea of insanity has as
also his having no relationship with the other accused, had also been taken.
It appears from the records that he had also absconded for some time.
20. Submission of Mr. Sushi! Kumar that such an injury can be
G caused by hard and blunt substance may be correct in view of the
statements made by the autopsy surgeon but merely because there is a ...
possibility in regard thereto, the same by itself cannot be a ground for •
holding that ocular evidence should be disbelieved. There are a large
number of authorities of this Court which clearly show that in certain
H
situations, the wound produced by a blunt instrument may similarly seem
HARIYADAVv. STATE[SINHA,J.] 787
....
to be an incised one. [See Kai/ash v. State of MP, (2006) 9 SCALE A
• 681].
21. It was not a case where there was a sudden fight. The accused
came prepared at the place of occurrence. An altercation might have taken
place but not only repeated assaults were made, other witnesses also
B
suffered injuries.
22. Each case must be decided on its own facts as has been held in
Kailash (Supra).

The law in this regard was laid down in Kailash (supra) in the
following terms:
c
"In Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab [1958] SCR 1495,
wherein Vivian-Bose, J. opined that infliction of one injury by
accused may be sufficient to hold him guilty for commission of an
offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code stating: D
·y_
In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury
found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on
broad lines as, for example, whether there was an intention to strike
at a vital or a dangerous spot, and whether with sufficient force to
cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, E
not necessary to enquire into every last detail as, for instance,
whether the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out, or
whether he intended to penetrate the liver or the kidneys or the
~ heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could
never be convict, for, ifhe does not know that there is a heart or F
a kidney or bowels, he cannot be said to have intended to injure
them. Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is broad-based
and simple and based on commonsense; the kind of enquiry that
"twelve good men and true" could readily appreciate and
understand. G
-y
)
To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts
before it can bring a case under Section 300. First, it must establish,
quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely
objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or
unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
B
Once these three elements are proved to present, the enquiry
proceeds further and, "
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described
made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause
c death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is
purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the
intention of the offender."
23. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal,
D which accordingly is dismissed.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.

-