Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Fortunately, the condition of Vimal did not deteriorate at least for some days and she lived up to the 11th of December 1982. Before that, however, she had developed a condition known as septicemia. This is caused by the burn injuries developing sepsis. Ultimately she died on account of septicemia on 11th of December 1982. Dr. Ahiwale, as P.W. 2, has conducted the post-mortem examination and he has given the opinion that Vimal died of septicemic shock due to burns. The post-mortem notes are at Exhibit 9.

19. Miss Sharma has thereafter argued that the offence, if it is held proved, could not be one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but could only be one under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to support her contention, she has, naturally, drawn our attention to the medical evidence on record. P.W. 2 Dr. Ahiwale has stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Vimal on 13th of December 1982. It should be stated at this stage that though Vimal was admitted in the hospital on 25th of November 1982, she survived up to 11th of December 1982. The external examination made by Dr. Ahiwale showed that there were deep burns on the lower parts of chest, around and below the umbilicus, upper part of left thigh, entire right thigh anteriorly and posterioly, genitelia, buttocks, posterior part of both fore-arms and lower arms of both sides of Vimal. There was no particular internal damage. He has given septicemic shock due to burns as the probable cause of death. In the examination-in-chief, the doctor has further stated that in case of 30% burns, there are very rare chances of survival. In the cross-examination, to a specific question, he has stated that burn injuries directly on upper part of chest, neck and face are supposed to be fatal injuries and a patient with such injuries is likely to die in all probability. He has accepted the suggestion that the patient having 30% burns below umbilicus has more chances of survival than a patient having 30% burn injuries above the umbilicus. From this Miss Sharma wants us to conclude that the death of Vimal was not the necessary consequence of the act of the accused. It has also been stated by Dr. Ahiwale that septicemia may be developed on account of the exposition of the burn injuries to things which are not sterilised, including the substituted clothes. If, therefore, says Miss Sharma, Vimal is shown to have died on account of septicemia, it cannot be said that the act of the accused caused the death of Vimal. The submission is based upon the interpretation of the first part of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Miss Sharma, even if it is assumed that the intention of the accused was to cause death, he has not done an act which caused the death of Vimal. At most it could be said that the intention of the accused to cause the death of Vimal was not translated into the effect of causing her death; it was translated into causing only burn injuries, which burn injuries alone were not the cause of the death of Vimal.

20. We have examined this apparently attractive submission of Miss Sharma with all the care that it deserves and we are unable to accept the same. In order to appreciate this submission, we think it necessary to refer also to the evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Tamboli, whose case papers have been produced before the Court at Exhibit 10. He has stated that treatment was given to Vimal for burn shock. Though she came out of that shock, later, on account of extensive burns, she developed complications, including sepsis due to infection. In reply to questions in the cross-examination, he has reaffirmed this position. He has stated that pus formation must have started on the second or third day of admission. He accepts the proposition put to him that septicemia may lead to septic shock. But it had not been brought out that septicemia was not the result of the burn injuries suffered by Vimal. On the other hand, as we have already seen, in the examination-in-chief he has asserted that on account of the extensive burns Vimal developed complications, including sepsis due to infection. The summary of the medical evidence is that the burn injuries which the accused had caused by setting the clothes of Vimal on fire were 30%. They caused burn shock. Though the patient came out of the same due to treatment, on account of the extensive burns received by her, she developed complications, including sepsis. The next condition was septicemia leading to septic shock. Septicemia itself is the species of the larger disease known as erysipelas. The question now, therefore, is whether the death of Vimal can be attributed to the act of the accused, which was that of pouring kerosene on the clothes of Vimal and setting them on fire ?

24. Dr. Sir Hari Singh Gour in his Penal Law of India has mentioned a rule applicable in such cases and it has been stated that it was laid down in Reg v. Flynm, (1868) 16 WR (Eng) 319. In that case it was pointed out that the authorities seem to lay down the rule that if a man who has received a serious blow or hurt does not alter his ways on that account, but continues to go through his ordinary course of life which he has been accustomed to pursue, that shall not exonerate the giver of the blow from his liability if such conduct has had the effect of causing death. But if, on the other hand, his acts subsequent to the blow, are so far out of his ordinary course as to give rise to a distinct set of circumstances causing a new mischief, then the new mischief will be regarded as the cousa causati, and not the original blow. (See Penal Law of India by Dr. Sir Hari Singh Gour, Volume IV, 10th Edition, page 2223). It is only when the intervening cause was totally unexpected or unrelated to the original injury caused by the act of the accused that one can possibly contend that the death was not the direct or proximate result of the act of the accused. We have before us the evidence of two doctors which unerringly shows that septicemia was incidental to or a necessary consequence of the burn injuries suffered by Vimal. This fact is not obliterated by the fact that by a proper medical care the possibility of septicemia could have been avoided. (See Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code).