Lapse of Time between Accidents and Dying doesn’t Diminish the Legal responsibility in Homicide Circumstances: Supreme Courtroom 

The Supreme Courtroom, on Tuesday, dominated that the legal responsibility of a homicide accused is not going to be diminished merely as a result of the demise of the sufferer occurred after a substantial lapse of time from when he suffered accidents because of the acts of the accused. [Prasad Pradhan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh] 

An opinion was given by the division bench of Justices Krishna Murari and S Ravindra Bhat, that “there will be no stereotypical assumption or formulation to conclude that it is a case of culpable murder not amounting to homicide solely as a result of the demise occurred after a lapse of someday after incurring the accidents.” 

Picture credit:

On this case, introduced earlier than the court docket, three males attacked the sufferer brutally with axes after they’d a disagreement with him. The deceased then handed away 20 days after the incident occurred. The appellants attacked the deceased after he tried to stage a disputed land with a JCB on 28 February 2012. On 22 March, the deceased handed away, contemplating {that a} legal criticism was registered in opposition to the appellants by the spouse of the deceased.  

“Each case has its distinctive truth scenario. Nevertheless, what’s necessary is the character of damage, and whether or not it’s ample within the abnormal course to result in demise,” the Supreme Courtroom acknowledged. 

The Chhattisgarh Excessive Courtroom had priorly confirmed the conviction of the appellants for committing the homicide and persuaded two of the accused convicts to look earlier than the Supreme Courtroom in attraction. 


The appellants contended earlier than the Supreme Courtroom that the demise of the deceased happened 20 days after the alleged incident and contended that difficult surgical procedure was the rationale for his demise. The appellants argued that their alleged acts weren’t the reason for the demise. 

They argued that the reason for demise was neither speedy nor a direct results of the assault. The SC was advised that the appellants can’t be convicted of such a homicide. Moderately, the appellants may, at finest, be convicted below part 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for culpable murder not amounting to homicide. 

The Supreme Courtroom, nonetheless, rejected this stance, noting a number of case legal guidelines and judgments which emphasised that “such a lapse of time wouldn’t per se represent a determinative issue to decrease the offender’s legal responsibility from the offence of homicide, to that culpable murder not amounting to homicide.” 

“In Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, the demise occurred 13 days after the assault; the accused was convicted of homicide. Equally in Patel Hiralal Joitaram v. State of Gujarat, the demise occurred a fortnight after the assault, in Sudershan Kumar (supra), the demise occurred 12 days after the assault,” The bench recounted. 

The Courtroom acknowledged an efficient response, stating that “the physician, who carried out the autopsy, on this case, “clearly deposed” that the demise was brought on on account of cardio-respiratory failures, because of the accidents inflicted upon the deceased.” 

“So, the accidents attributable to the appellants and the demise of the deceased had been carefully and immediately linked,” the Courtroom stated. 

Furthermore, it was additionally noticed that the appellants failed to offer a proof after questioning the reliability and credibility of the witnesses. 

The Courtroom additional noticed that “there was no scope to plead or contend that the demise was unintentional, on account of a ‘sudden quarrel’ as claimed by the appellants. The assault was attributable to axes, which indicated their pre-meditated intention to hurt the deceased.” 

The judgment of this case acknowledged that “The appellants who had been within the adjoining property, climbed the wall, entered the deceased’s home, and attacked him with axes. These information don’t represent a ‘sudden quarrel’ on condition that the appellants abused the deceased, in an unprovoked method, after which they went to the place he was, armed with axes, and assaulted him.” 

Given these observations, the Courtroom upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants for committing the homicide.