Murder Charge Can Be Added Against Accused If Injured Victim Dies Due To Septicemia Days After Being Discharged From Hospital: MP High Court

Rejecting the contentions raised by the Petitioner/accused, the bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed-

…in my considered opinion, the trial Court did nothing wrong because it can very well form an opinion at the time of trial or after conclusion of trial whether offence under Section 302 is made out or not. Taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Veerla Satyanarayana (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that if death is caused due to septicaemia, offence under Section 302 of IPC is rightly made out, I am also of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any patent or material irregularity and at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in the same or to form an opinion that the offence under Section 302 is not made out against the applicant.

Facts of the case were that a FIR was registered against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Section 294 (Obscene acts and songs), 333 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 307 (Attempt of Murder) of IPC.

However, 13 days after being discharged from the hospital, the injured person died due to septicaemia. Considering the said development, the trial court charged the Petitioner/accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 25-1(B)(b) of Arms Act along with the other offences mentioned in the FIR.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the revision petition to challenge the legality of the order passed by the lower court.

The Petitioner submitted that the deceased was discharged from the hospital after the doctors had concluded that he had suffered a simple injury. It was contended that since the injured person died later due to septicaemia, the same ought to be attributed to negligence on the part of the doctors who had treated him earlier and not to the Petitioner. Therefore, it was argued that the offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out against him.

Per contra, the State supported the order passed by the trial court by submitting that the cause of death shown by the doctor was septicaemia which admittedly got developed owing to the injury caused by the Petitioner and as such, offence under Section 307 IPC was rightly converted into Section 302 IPC. It was further argued that it was just a charge levelled against the Petitioner and that he could challenge the same during the trial.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the lower court's decision. Referring to the decisions of the Apex Court, the Court opined that murder could very well be attributed to septicaemia caused by the injury inflicted upon the deceased by the accused-

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it is very difficult to form an opinion even by the trial Court at the time of framing of charge that the cause of death was not directly related with the injury caused by the applicant. If the charge of Section 302 has been added at the time of framing of charge on the basis of opinion given in the MLC, the same can be altered only after examination of the doctor who had given opinion.

Furthermore, the Court noted that Petitioner was at liberty to convince the court below as to why the offence U/S 302 IPC is not made out against him-

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the petition filed by the Petitioner did not have merit and accordingly, the same was dismissed.