De-Addiction Centre Manager Kicked Patient’s Abdomen, But Death Risk Wasn’t Proved: Delhi HC Cuts Conviction To Grievous Hurt

The appellant managed a de-addiction centre where the deceased was receiving treatment.

The deceased’s brother, PW-1, testified that when he tried to take the deceased home on 7 July 2013, the appellant dragged him into an adjoining room and repeatedly struck him, including with kicks to the abdomen, during a dispute over unpaid fees.

The deceased was treated at several hospitals for abdominal injuries, including intestinal perforations, and died on 15 July 2013.

The post-mortem attributed death to septicemic shock associated with damage to abdominal structures caused by blunt-force impact.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000; it acquitted the co-accused.

The appellant appealed, challenging both the attribution of the injuries to him and the finding that he had the knowledge required for Section 304 Part II.

Section 304 Part II IPC requires proof that the accused committed the act with knowledge that it was likely to cause death; that knowledge may be inferred from the manner of assault, the injuries intended, the body part targeted and the surrounding circumstances, but not merely from the fact that death followed.

In Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 2 SCC 788, the Supreme Court distinguished intention from knowledge under Section 299 IPC and explained that knowledge concerns awareness of the likelihood of death.

Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC provides that a person who causes bodily injury may remain responsible for the resulting death even if proper treatment might have prevented it.

Section 325 IPC applies to voluntarily causing grievous hurt; the Court treated the appellant’s intentional infliction of the serious abdominal injuries as satisfying that provision, though the prosecution had not proved the higher mental element required by Section 304 Part II.

The Court found PW-1’s account of the assault sufficiently supported by the MLC, which recorded multiple injuries, and by the deceased’s later-reported history of assault.

The initial hospital record noted abdominal pain without a history of assault, and the investigation did not examine other persons at the centre or verify the deceased’s movements; these matters called for caution but did not displace the evidence that the appellant inflicted bodily injuries.

The post-mortem and subsequent medical opinion connected the death to traumatic abdominal injuries, and the intervening hospital treatment did not itself break the causal link.

However, the Court held that the sudden dispute, absence of premeditation or a weapon, and lack of evidence that the appellant knew of any particular vulnerability did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he knew his act was likely to cause death.

The repeated blows to the abdomen did establish intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, warranting conviction under Section 325 IPC.

The conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was set aside and substituted with a conviction under Section 325 IPC.

The substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone; the fine of Rs. 50,000 and the four-month default sentence were upheld.

The appellant was directed to be released forthwith if in custody, provided he was not required in another case, subject to the stated conditions.