A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal arises from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reversing the trial court’s acquittal and convicting Sita Ram and Onkar Singh for offences arising out of a single nocturnal assault on Prem Lal that occurred on 16 November 2000. The deceased himself lodged the First Information Report at the police station after the assault, was medically examined, later admitted to hospital with a fissured skull fracture, suffered gastroenteritis during treatment and died nine days later on 25 November 2000. The post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia, while medico-legal exposition in the judgment links the skull injury to subsequent hypoxic-ischemic brain injury and aspiration leading to asphyxia.

The High Court convicted Sita Ram under Section 304 IPC and Onkar Singh under Sections 323 and 451 IPC, sentencing them to imprisonment; this Court in appeal upheld the High Court’s findings on culpability but substantially reduced sentences on mitigating grounds.

The judgment affirms:

(i) that a FIR made by the injured person may be admissible under Section 32, Evidence Act as a statement relating to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death even if not made in expectation of imminent death;

(ii) medico-legal causation may permissibly connect head injury to eventual asphyxia and hypoxic brain injury when the chain of events is medically plausible;

(iii) a credible dying-type statement, once held believable, need not be disregarded for lack of oath or cross-examination.

Keywords: culpable homicide, asphyxia, hypoxic-ischemic brain injury, dying declaration, FIR admissibility.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The matter records a common rural conflict escalating into physical violence within a family, followed by medical complications and eventual death. Prem Lal (the eventual deceased) quarreled with his brother Pyare Lal over burning a heap of cow-dung. The brother summoned two friends, Sita Ram (appellant No.1) and Onkar Singh (appellant No.2), and an assault followed in which Sita Ram allegedly struck the victim with a darat (sickle-type agricultural implement) on the forehead while the others used fists and kicks. Immediately thereafter the injured party reported to police and lodged an FIR (on 17 November 2000), was medically examined, later admitted to hospital when condition worsened, suffered complications (documented as gastroenteritis during treatment) and succumbed nine days after the assault.

Initial criminal proceedings charged multiple offences including culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The trial court, on appreciation of prosecution witnesses and documents, acquitted all accused. The State appealed, and the High Court on re-appraisal convicted Sita Ram under Section 304 IPC and Onkar Singh under Sections 323 and 451 IPC, imposing prison sentences. The present appeal contested the High Court’s interference with an acquittal and advanced (inter alia) medical causation and dying-declaration admissibility arguments. This Court confined itself to reviewing legal correctness in the High Court’s reasoning rather than re-weighing the entire evidentiary matrix and found no perversity in the High Court’s conclusions while exercising clemency in sentencing.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On the night of 16 November 2000 an argument occurred in the angan of the deceased’s house between Prem Lal and his brother Pyare Lal concerning a pile of cow-dung. Pyare Lal called Sita Ram and Onkar Singh, who arrived and allegedly assaulted Prem Lal: Sita Ram allegedly struck the deceased’s forehead with a darat, while the other two administered fist and kick blows. The deceased’s wife intervened and the assailants departed after threats. The injured Prem Lal proceeded to the police station on 17 November 2000 and lodged a written statement (FIR) narrating the assault and requesting medical attention; he was medically examined at CHC and the MLC noted a sharp weapon injury.

Following deteriorating condition, the injured was admitted to Civil Hospital, where diagnosis included a fissured fracture of the skull. While under treatment the deceased developed gastroenteritis; subsequent aspiration of stomach contents is recorded in the post-mortem as contributing to asphyxia, the ultimate cause of death on 25 November 2000. The investigation initially charged the accused under non-fatal and intimidation offences; after death the police added Section 304 IPC. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and tendered documentary medical records. The trial court acquitted; the High Court reversed and convicted; this Court has heard the appeals by the two convicted persons.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal on the available evidence?
ii. Whether the FIR lodged by the injured person qualifies as a statement under Section 32, Evidence Act relating to the cause of his death and therefore admissible as dying declaration material?
iii. Whether death by asphyxia nine days after head injury is legally attributable to the accused’s actus reus so as to attract Section 304 IPC (i.e., proximate causation between assault and death)?
iv. Whether absence of oath and cross-examination diminishes the evidentiary value of the injured’s statement in the FIR?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the High Court unlawfully disturbed a well-reasoned acquittal and that the appellate court should not lightly set aside a trial court’s credibility findings unless perverse; they urged that asphyxia—the post-mortem cause bore no proximate nexus to the head wound and thus the FIR could not be treated as a dying declaration concerning the cause of death; further, the FIR was not recorded in expectation of death, and absence of sworn testimony and cross-examination renders it unreliable unless corroborated.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent (State) submitted that on re-appraisal the High Court correctly found the evidence to support that the assault caused a skull fissure which, through documented medical complications (gastroenteritis, aspiration), led to hypoxic brain injury and death; the victim’s contemporaneous FIR was a credible statement of the transaction resulting in death and admissible under Section 32; medical literature supports the causal chain and the High Court’s findings were neither perverse nor illegal.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
ii. Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (voluntarily causing hurt).
iii. Section 451, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (house-trespass in order to commit an offence).
iv. Section 32, Evidence Act, 1872 (statements of deceased as to cause of death and circumstances).

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court declined to re-open factual appreciation extensively because the High Court had re-evaluated the evidence and recorded reasons; the Court found no palpable error or perversity in the High Court’s reasoning. The medical cause of death being asphyxia did not preclude attributing death to the earlier head injury. The Court elaborated medico-legal pathways: head injury may produce intracranial pressure, brainstem compromise of respiratory centers, vascular compromise producing hypoxia, and even secondary gastrointestinal complications (stress ulcers/cushing-type reactions or vagally mediated effects) that predispose to vomiting and aspiration while the patient is comatose or semi-conscious leading to asphyxia.

The judgment relied on medical texts and articles cited in the record to illustrate that an initial cranial impact may initiate a cascade ending in hypoxic-ischemic injury and death; thus the fissured skull fracture was a proximate antecedent of the fatal asphyxia. On admissibility, the Court held that Section 32(1) does not require that the deceased be under an expectation of imminent death when making the statement; Indian law permits admissibility where the statement relates to the cause of his death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, and its credibility is a question for the court.

The Court reiterated that once a statement by the deceased is found believable, absence of oath and cross-examination does not invalidate its evidentiary value and corroboration is not mandatory. Weighing mitigating factors (short pre-trial detention, rustic background, age), the Court reduced sentences: Sita Ram’s sentence reduced from six years RI to one year RI (fine maintained), Onkar Singh’s sentence reduced to the period already undergone (with fine condition). The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is twofold. First, in medico-legal causation the Court recognized that a cranial injury causing a fissured fracture can set in motion physiological derangements (brain swelling, compromise of breathing centers, hypoxia, aspiration from gastroenteritis) capable of producing death by asphyxia; where medical opinion and documentary records connect those links, the assaultor’s actus reus may be held to have caused death under Section 304 IPC. Second, Section 32(1) does not condition admissibility of statements about the cause of death upon the declarant’s apprehension of impending death; thus an FIR made by the injured person that describes the transaction causing the injury which later results in death is admissible and may be acted upon if the court finds it credible.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court’s discussion includes explanatory medico-legal notes on hypoxic-ischemic brain injury, aspiration, and the vagal nexus between cranial injury and gastric complications; these are elucidatory observations reinforcing causation but not laying down new legal tests beyond established principles in Kans Raj and Mange Ram. The Court also reinforces the evidentiary position that credibility determination is fact-driven and that legal formalities (oath/cross-examination) do not by themselves negate a deceased’s contemporaneous statement if otherwise credible.

c. GUIDELINES

The judgment suggests practical guidance: courts should examine medical records and expert material when proximate causation is medically complex; where the deceased’s contemporaneous statement describes the assault and is supported by medical and circumstantial evidence, it may be admitted under Section 32; appellate courts reversing acquittals must nonetheless satisfy that trial court findings were perverse before interference, but are entitled to re-appreciation when error is demonstrated.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision carefully balances evidentiary law and medico-legal causation in homicide prosecutions. It affirms that causation analysis is not confined to immediate mechanical causes (e.g., strangulation) but may encompass a medically established chain initiated by the accused’s assault. The Court’s treatment of Section 32 aligns with precedent rejecting an “expectation of death” requirement, thereby preserving probative use of contemporaneous victim statements. The reduction of sentence reflects appropriate tempering of retribution with mitigating circumstances. For practitioners, the judgment underscores the necessity of presenting clear medical linkage when death follows days after injury, and of litigating the admissibility and credibility of injured persons’ statements with careful attention to statutory language and precedents cited herein.

K) REFERENCES 

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. (as cited in record).

3. State of Haryana v. Mange Ram & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 637. (as cited in record).

4. Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 207. (as cited in record).

5. Indian Penal Code, 1860; Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Provisions relied upon as recorded in the judgment).

6. Medical and academic authorities cited in the judgment: Schmidt’s Attorneys’ Dictionary of Medicine, Vol. 1; Braslow et al., Male With Torso Injury, 53(1) Annals of Emergency Medicine (2009); Myriam Lacerte et al., Hypoxic Brain Injury, National Library of Medicine (2023); Wolfe & Sachs, Gastroenterology (2000). (All referenced in the judgment).