Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)· 20 July 2026
Can a conviction under Section 302 IPC stand where the injury's sufficiency to cause death is not proved?
Narayanan v. The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, Virudhunagar
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023 · Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
Coram: A.D.Jagadish Chandira; R.Poornima
Answer
No. Where neither the doctor who examined the deceased on admission nor the doctor who conducted the autopsy deposed that the injury was, in the ordinary course of nature, sufficient to cause death, and there is a long time gap between infliction of the injury and death, a Section 302 IPC conviction cannot be sustained; the offence is reduced to Section 304(II) IPC.
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.304(II) — s.341 — s.294(b) — Proximate cause of death — Absence of treatment evidence — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder —
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.304(II) — Proximate cause of death not proved absent treatment evidence —
Held: A conviction under Section 302 cannot stand where the prosecution fails to prove the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; testimony of neither treating doctor established that the head injury conclusively caused death after an eight-day gap between infliction and death. (¶15, 16)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.304(II) — Non-examination of treating doctor and case sheet — Effect on culpability —
Held further: Non-examination of the doctor who treated the deceased during the intervening period and non-production of the case sheet deprives the accused of the opportunity to examine the nature of treatment, and benefits the accused by reducing the offence to Section 304(II) even where the overt act and resultant injury stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶16, 17)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.341 — s.294(b) — Waylaying proved, abusive words not proved to annoy others —
Held further: Conviction under Section 341 is sustainable where the prosecution establishes the deceased was waylaid before the attack, but conviction under Section 294(b) cannot be sustained where it is not shown that the words uttered caused annoyance to others. Appeal partly allowed; conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304(II) IPC with five years' rigorous imprisonment, Section 341 conviction upheld, Section 294(b) conviction set aside. (¶18, 19)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 15However, the contention of the appellant in respect of the failure of the prosecution to prove the proximate cause of death needs to be looked into. As per the prosecution’s case, the deceased was initially admitted to the Virudhunagar Government Hospital on 29.06.2015 and later, he was shifted to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for further treatment on 30.06.2015 where he eventually succumbed to his injuries on 07.07.2015. On perusal of the records available, this Court finds that there is no material whatsoever to suggest that the bodily injury caused by the appellant’s overt act was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. Further, this Court finds that even the testimonies of both the doctors (PW22 and PW24) do not suggest the said injury was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. In fact, Dr. Rajavelu (PW22), the doctor who conducted the autopsy, has also issued his Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P8) opining that the deceased would appear to have died due to the said head injury or its complications but has not deposed that the injury was conclusively sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause the death of the deceased.
Paragraph 16Taking into consideration the nature of injuries and further taking into consideration the long time gap between the time of infliction of the said injury and the time of death of the deceased and upon giving due consideration to the failure of the prosecution to lead evidence as to the nature and particulars of treatment, this Court finds that it cannot be conclusively found that the proximate cause of death was the said injury. Having found so, this Court finds its useful to place reliance on Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1994 Supp (1) SCC 462], wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when no sufficient material as to the nature of the treatment given to the deceased during his time in the hospital were available on record, even though the injury may have resulted in the death of the deceased, it cannot be conclusively said that it was sufficient to cause death. Harish Kumar, supra, has also been followed by various Coordinate Benches of this Court in Rajan and others v. State by Inspector of Police [2002 LW (Crl) 789], Thamilarasan v. State by Inspector of Police [2004 SCC OnLine Mad 777], Ponnambalam v. State [2017 SCC OnLine Mad 28158] and Ramasamy v. State [2019 SCC OnLine Mad 24973]. Instead of adverting to all these decisions thereby, making this judgment prolix, it would suffice to extract the relevant portion from Ponnambalam, supra, which is as follows:
Acts & Sections
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 207 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 313 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Narayanan v. The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, Virudhunagar — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →