'Lapse of time between injuries, death doesn't reduce liability in murder case'

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 caseA 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 deathIt further added that the adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor in this case because the doctor who conducted the postmortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio respiratory failures as a result of the injuries inflicted upon the deceasedThus the injuries and the death were closely and directly linkedDuring 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 natureAlso Read Supreme Court asks CBI Gujarat why they want activist Teesta Setalvad her husband back in jailThe 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 offenders liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murderThe appellants moved the apex court challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court orderwhich confirmed their conviction for murderAccording to the police the accused had attacked the deceased after he tried to level disputed land with a JCB in February 2012After the victim died a criminal case was registered against the appellants by the victims familyThe 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 deathThe 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 IPCThis 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 benchIt further added that the doctor who conducted the postmortem 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 complicationsThe top court did not accept appellants contention that the death was caused unintentionally on account of a sudden quarrelIt said the appellants were armed with axes which indicated their premediated intent to harm the deceasedThe testimonies of the two important eyewitnesses establish that when the deceased was levelling the septic tank on his property the accusedappellants started abusing him he asked them not to The appellants who were in the adjacent property climbed the wall entered the deceaseds house and attacked him with axes said the bench upholding the high court orderThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever