A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This analysis examines Sita Ram & Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2013, decided 6 March 2025 (reported as [2025] 4 S.C.R. 204 : 2025 INSC 359). The core controversy concerned whether the High Court rightly reversed a trial court acquittal and convicted the first appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (s.304 IPC) and the second appellant for hurt and house-trespass (ss.323, 451 IPC), for injuries inflicted on the deceased who later died of asphyxia after treatment for a skull fracture.

The judgment evaluates:

(i) medical causation linking head injury to death by asphyxia via hypoxic brain injury and complications (gastroenteritis, aspiration), and

(ii) evidentiary law on the admissibility and probative value of statements made by the deceased specifically the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by him as a dying declaration under Section 32, Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court affirmed the High Court’s re-appreciation of evidence and held there was no perversity in findings, explaining medico-legal pathways (brain swelling, damage to breathing centers, aspiration) by which head trauma may culminate in asphyxia. Crucially, the Court reiterated settled law that admissibility under s.32 does not require the maker to have an apprehension of imminent death; if a statement relates to the circumstances causing death and is found believable, it may operate as substantive evidence without mandatory corroboration.

Mitigating factors prompted substantial sentence reduction. The judgment therefore binds medico-legal causation and dying-declaration jurisprudence, while emphasising the appellate court’s power to re-appreciate evidence when trial findings are found erroneous on the record.

Keywords: Culpable homicide, Asphyxia, Hypoxic brain injury, Dying declaration, Section 32 Evidence Act, Fissured skull fracture, FIR, Proximate cause.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The matter reached the Supreme Court after the High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the State’s appeal against acquittal and convicted two appellants for offences arising out of an alleged assault on the deceased, Prem Lal, on 16 November 2000. The deceased himself lodged the FIR the following day describing assault with a Darat (sickle-like agricultural implement) and blows from co-accused; he sought medical treatment, was admitted later when his condition worsened, and died nine days after the incident.

Post-mortem disclosed a fissured fracture of the skull; cause of death recorded as asphyxia. The trial court had acquitted on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence. The High Court, on re-appreciation, convicted Sita Ram for s.304 IPC and Onkar for ss.323, 451 IPC, imposing imprisonment terms. The Supreme Court’s task was twofold: to decide whether the High Court erred in substituting trial findings and whether the FIR lodged by the deceased could be treated as admissible and reliable under s.32 despite the post-mortem attributing death to asphyxia rather than direct cranial injury.

The Court also examined medico-legal causation whether a head injury could proximately result in asphyxia through mechanisms accepted in medical literature (brain swelling, compromise of respiratory centres, aspiration due to gastroenteritis/Cushing-type stress ulcers) as narrated in the lower courts’ records and the post-mortem. The judgment thus navigates interplay between causation in criminal liability and the evidentiary weight of pre-death statements.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 16 November 2000 at about 10:30 p.m., an altercation occurred between Prem Lal and his brother Pyare Lal over a heap of cow-dung. Pyare Lal summoned two friends, the appellants Sita Ram (A-1) and Onkar (A-2). The prosecution alleged that Sita Ram struck the deceased on the forehead with a Darat, producing a head wound, while the other two assaulted him with fists and kicks. The deceased’s wife intervened; the assailants threatened to kill him and left.

The deceased first received preliminary medical attention, then personally lodged FIR No. 205/2000 on 17 November 2000 detailing the assault (FIR recorded the weapon as a Darat and noted injury). He was later admitted to hospital as his condition deteriorated and, after approximately nine days (25 November 2000), he died. Post-mortem reported a fissured skull fracture and that during treatment he suffered gastroenteritis leading to aspiration; the medical opinion recorded asphyxia as cause of death.

Trial court, after examining eleven witnesses and documents including MLC and post-mortem, acquitted all accused. The State appealed; the High Court reversed acquittal, convicting A-1 under s.304 and A-2 under ss.323, 451, imposing imprisonment and fines. The present appeal challenged the High Court’s re-appreciation and legal conclusions on dying declaration admissibility and causation.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

i. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal on re-appreciation of evidence and convicting the appellants?
ii. Whether the FIR lodged by the deceased could be treated as a dying declaration under s.32, Evidence Act, 1872, despite absence of an express expectation of imminent death?
iii. Whether death by asphyxia after nine days was proximately caused by the head injury inflicted during the assault so as to attract liability under s.304 IPC?
iv. Whether a dying declaration requires corroboration before being relied upon as substantive evidence?
v. Whether sentence mitigation was warranted despite conviction?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellants contended that the trial court’s acquittal rested on careful appraisal and should not have been disturbed unless findings were perverse; that the medical cause of death (asphyxia) lacked proximate connection to the cranial injury attributed to the appellants; that the FIR could not be a dying declaration as it was made when the deceased had no expectation of death and did not state cause of death as asphyxia; and that the State failed to prove causation beyond reasonable doubt. They urged leniency given age, rural background, and the elapsed time.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State contended that medical evidence established a causal chain where the head injury produced skull fracture leading to complications (gastroenteritis, aspiration) culminating in hypoxic brain injury and asphyxia; the FIR lodged by the deceased constituted an admissible statement under s.32 because it related to circumstances of the transaction resulting in death and was credible; once believed, it did not require corroboration; the High Court rightly re-evaluated evidence which, in its view, warranted conviction.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
ii. Section 323, IPC – voluntarily causing hurt.
iii. Section 451, IPC – house-trespass.
iv. Section 32, Evidence Act, 1872 – relevance of statements by persons who are dead, including statements “when it relates to cause of death …”, admissible whether or not maker was under expectation of death.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court declined to re-appreciate afresh the entire evidence where the High Court had already undertaken thorough review. Finding no palpable error or perversity in the High Court’s reasoning, the Court upheld the conviction of A-1 for s.304 IPC and A-2 for ss.323, 451 IPC on the record and medical conclusions.

The Court analysed medico-legal causation in careful detail, explaining accepted mechanisms by which head trauma may produce fatal respiratory compromise: intracranial pressure increase causing brainstem compression and dysfunction of respiratory centers; vascular injury causing hypoxia; secondary complications such as gastroenteritis leading to aspiration of gastric contents (chyme) into lungs in a compromised patient, producing asphyxia and hypoxic-ischemic brain injury.

The Court observed that though the post-mortem recorded asphyxia as cause of death, medico-legal jurisprudence supports viewing the fissured skull fracture as the operative cause initiating the fatal sequence. The Court cited medical literature placed before it in the record to buttress causation analysis and rejected the appellants’ contention that an absence of express apprehension of death in the FIR defeated admissibility under s.32.

Relying on precedent, the Court reiterated that Indian law does not condition admissibility on expectation of imminent death; rather such statements are relevant if they relate to the cause or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death and are found credible. The Court emphasised that once a dying declaration is believable, absence of oath or cross-examination does not disqualify it and corroboration is not a legal pre-requisite.

Applying these principles to the FIR (lodged by the deceased and recorded after being sent for medical check-up), the Court found it trustworthy and properly relied upon by the High Court. On sentencing, while upholding convictions, the Court reduced A-1’s sentence from six years RI to one year RI (fine maintained) and set A-2’s sentence to the period already undergone, imposing fines and default terms as specified. The Court ordered surrender timelines and bail particulars.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is twofold: first, when medical evidence establishes a credible causal chain from an assault-inflicted skull fracture to death by asphyxia through recognised physiological mechanisms, criminal liability under s.304 IPC can follow despite a temporal gap; second, under s.32 Evidence Act a statement made by a person concerning the circumstances of the transaction resulting in his death is admissible irrespective of whether the person entertained an expectation of imminent death, and once the statement is found believable it may constitute substantive evidence without mandatory corroboration.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court elaborated clinically on hypoxic-ischemic brain injury and causal pathways—observations that, while supportive of its conclusions, are instructive remarks on medico-legal causation rather than novel legal propositions. The Court reiterated comparative note on English law versus Indian statutory language on dying declarations, observing that Indian law is broader.

c. GUIDELINES 

The judgment furnishes practical guidance: courts should examine post-mortem and medical opinion holistically to determine proximate cause; re-appreciation by appellate courts in acquittal appeals is legitimate where trial evaluation is demonstrably erroneous; credibility of statements made by the deceased must be assessed on facts and accuracy, not on the maker’s apprehension of death; and when relying on medical literature, courts should link observed clinical findings with accepted mechanisms to establish causation.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Court’s decision reinforces doctrinal clarity on dying declarations under s.32 and affirms that proximate causation in homicidal deaths may be established by medical reasoning connecting initial injury to terminal physiological events. The judgment is notable for synthesising medical and legal reasoning, cautioning trial courts against narrow compartmentalisation of cause-of-death labels when forensic pathology and clinical course indicate a connected sequence. Sentence moderation reflects balancing retributive aims with mitigating facts. The case will be a useful precedent where cranial injuries lead to secondary fatal complications and where pre-death statements are crucial.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Sita Ram & Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 204 : 2025 INSC 359.

2. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 758 (reported in 11 SCR 789).

3. State of Haryana v. Mange Ram & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 637 (reported also in Supp. 5 SCR 35).

4. Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 207 (reported in 3 SCR 662).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ss.304, 323, 451, 324, 504, 506, 34).

2. Evidence Act, 1872 (s.32).