The Court further held that the existence of a pre-existing condition or the possibility that the hematoma may have resulted from other factors, such as long-term alcohol consumption or aspirin use, does not justify discharging the accused. At the prima facie stage, the medical opinion connecting the death to the assault is sufficient to proceed with the charges, it underscored.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of an order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi, whereby formal charges under Sections 302 and 341 IPC were framed against the petitioner in an FIR for allegedly causing the death of one Deepak Kumar by inflicting a blow with a wooden stick on his head, who died three months later after developing subdural hematoma complications.

A Single Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem, while observing that “the Doctor's opinion that the alleged occurrence is the root cause is decisive at the prima-facie stage,” held that “the post-mortem report explicitly opines that death was caused by Recurrent acute on chronic SDH with complications which originated from the assault by the accused. This medical opinion constitutes prima-facie evidence of causation as the condition is a recognized medical condition in which bleeding occurs over a pre-existing condition, frequently triggered or aggravated by trauma such as beating.”

Background:

The petitioner was sent up for trial for offences under Sections 302 and 341 IPC accusing him of committing the murder of deceased Deepak Kumar by inflicting a fatal blow with a wooden stick on his head. The deceased was working in a private school and was also supplying milk to the petitioner.

On 6 October 2022 at about 7:30 PM, when the deceased was returning home after purchasing household items from Reasi Bazar, the petitioner allegedly wrongfully restrained him and inflicted blows with a wooden stick on his head and other parts of the body. The deceased died on 15 January 2023 while hospitalized in the ICU.

Initially, FIR was registered under Sections 341 and 323 IPC on the written complaint of the brother of the deceased. As the investigation progressed and the deceased's condition deteriorated, the Investigating Officer concluded commission of offences under Sections 302 and 341 IPC, and the trial court framed charges accordingly.

The petitioner sought quashing of the charge-framing order on the grounds that the CT Scan report revealed neither fracture nor bleeding, that the injury in the ordinary course was not sufficient to cause death, that the alleged weapon of offence (a wooden stick of length 2 feet 8 inches) was not sufficient, and that the cause of death given as “Recurrent acute on chronic SDH with complications” (subdural hematoma) could be due to long-term use of heavy alcohol or aspirin, and not necessarily the assault. He contended that at most, an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC would be made out.

Court's Observations:

Justice Azeem noted that the prosecution had cited 26 witnesses, and two witnesses (PW-2, the wife of the deceased, and PW-3, the brother) had already been examined, both of whom prima facie supported the prosecution story that the deceased received a head injury from the petitioner which proved fatal.

The Court held that the trial court, while framing charges, looked at the charge-sheet and accompanying documents including statements and medical evidence, not the original FIR. An FIR is not proof of facts alleged in it and cannot independently prove or disprove the occurrence.

Addressing the petitioner's contention regarding the cause of death, the Court made the key observation,

“.... The post-mortem report explicitly opines that death was caused by Recurrent acute on chronic SDH with complications which originated from the assault by the accused. This medical opinion rather prima-facie constitutes evidence of causation as the condition is a recognized medical condition in which bleeding occurs over a pre-existing condition, frequently triggered or aggravated by trauma such as beating. The Doctor's opinion in the case on hand that the alleged occurrence is the root cause is decisive at the prima-facie stage and thus, no fault can be found, particularly, while framing the charges on the basis of material available on record.”

Regarding the argument that there was no intention to cause death and that the weapon was not sufficient, the Court held that intention or knowledge that the alleged act is likely to cause death is an inference drawn from the totality of the circumstances, nature of assault, part of body targeted (head in this case), force used, weapon, and number of blows. The Court held that this is not a pure question of law that can be decided under Section 482 Cr.PC and falls within the realm of triable issues.

The Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the High Court at the charge-framing stage cannot be converted into appellate or revisional jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence on merits, and that no fault was found with the trial court's order framing charges under Sections 302 and 341 IPC.

The High Court thus dismissed the petition, holding that it was devoid of merit. The order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi, framing charges under Sections 302 and 341 IPC against the petitioner was accordingly upheld.

Case Title: Manga Ram v. Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment