1. Appeals under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 against conviction under Section 302/34 IPC for causing death of an elderly woman. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Saddam @ Ataur Rehman – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 1635/2025 | CRL.M.A. 35500/2025 | CRL.A. 255/2026 | CRL.M.(BAIL) 533/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chatanya Siddharth, Kartikey Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Divya Yadav, Lalit Luthra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chatanya Siddharth, Kartikey Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Divya Yadav, Lalit Luthra
The court held that where the weapon used is not deadly, injuries are not grievous, and death results from septicemic shock rather than the direct impact of injuries, the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, not murder.
Headnote:(A) Culpable Homicide vs Murder - Distinction - The determination of whether an act constitutes murder under Section 300 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 IPC requires a structured three-stage enquiry: establishing homicide, determining if it is culpable homicide, and then checking if it falls within the four clauses of Section 300 IPC. (Para 23)
(B) Section 300 Clause (2) IPC - Vulnerability of Victim - Mere old age of the deceased is insufficient to attract Clause (2) of Section 300 IPC; the prosecution must prove the accused knew the victim suffered from a specific disease or infirmity that made a blow likely to cause death. (Para 27, 27.2)
(C) Intention to Cause Death - Factors - Intention is gathered from a combination of circumstances, including the nature of the weapon used, whether the blow was aimed at a vital part, and the amount of force employed. A wooden danda of 1.5 feet is not characterized as a deadly weapon. (Para 29, 30, 32)
(D) Cause of Death - Septicemic Shock - Where death occurs several days after the incident due to septicemic shock and medical evidence does not establish that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence is downgraded from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 35, 37, 41)
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part II IPC based on the nature of the weapon and the medical cause of death.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
-
crime and sentencing
- offences against the person
- indian penal code
-
bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023
- section 415(2) (Para 2)
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued offence under Section 302 IPC not made out; case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC. State argued murder established. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. No intention to cause death; injuries not sufficient in ordinary course to cause death; death due to septicemic shock; conviction under Section 302 IPC perverse. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
4. For murder under Section 300 IPC, intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course must be proved. (Para 22 , 23 )
5. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC; sentence of imprisonment already undergone. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
6. What is the test to determine whether a case falls under Section 302 or Section 304 Part II IPC?
The court must determine if homicide constitutes culpable homicide under Section 299, then whether it falls within any clause of Section 300 defining murder. If not, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304. (Para 23 , 24 )
7. When does Clause (2) of Section 300 IPC apply?
Clause (2) applies when the offender knows the victim suffers from a disease making a blow likely to cause death. Mere old age of victim is insufficient. (Para 27 )
8. What must be proved for a case to fall under Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC?
The prosecution must prove: (1) a bodily injury is present, (2) its nature is proved, (3) there was intention to inflict that particular injury, and (4) the injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 )
9. What are the factors to determine intention to cause death?
Factors include nature of weapon used, whether blow is aimed at vital part, force employed, sudden quarrel, premeditation, prior enmity, number of blows, and whether accused acted in a cruel manner. (Para 29 , 30 )
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These two appeals have been preferred by the Appellants - Saddam @ Ataur Rehman and Mohd. Ubesh alias Shahrukh under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 assailing the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2025 whereby the Appellants were convicted for offences under Section 302/34 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 06.08.2025, both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.02.2019 at around 00:42 AM, at House No.180, Gali No.3, Munga Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Dayalpur, the Appellant - Saddam alias Ataur Rehman caught hold of deceased Smt. Hamida and the Appellant - Mohd. Ubesh alias Shahrukh, gave beatings to the deceased with a wooden danda having pointed edge on one side whereas the mother of the Appellant - Mohd. Ubesh alias Shahrukh namely, Salma gave slaps to deceased Hamidan with an intention to kill, as a result of which she sustained injuries.
4. The injured was taken to GTB Hospital on the same day where she remained under treatment for about seven (07) days and died on 07.03.2019. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and the charges were framed on 29.07.2019 against the Appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC.
5. The co-accused Salma could not be arrested as she had absconded. The Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and examined 16 witnesses, whereafter the statements of the Appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. They did not, however, lead any defence evidence.
6. The ld. Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, convicted the Appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC based on the testimony of PW1 Shahzad who deposed that the injuries were inflicted on the deceased by the two Appellants and one Salma, and such injuries were opined by doctor to be antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. The relevant extract from the Trial Court judgment reads as under:
“75. It is, further contended that PW1 stated in his examination in chief that his grandmother was beaten with sharp object, while in cross examination, it is mentioned that his grand mother was killed by sharp edged pointed danda. Whereas it is mentioned in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that a nukili cheez was used.
76. However, there is no material inconsistency in his statement. PW 1 stated in examination in chief that sharp object was used and it is clarified in cross examination that it was a sharp edged danda. A danda can be sharp edged from a side, hence there is no inconsistency in his statement.
77. It is contended that PW 1 in his cross examination claimed to have made the the PCR call from his mobile no. 9871XX8706, but DD entry No. 4A shows the call was made by someone else from mobile number 9650XX7858. However, it is an immaterial inconsistency. A PCR call was made which is duly proved and thereafter police reached at the spot which is established by way of testimony of public and police witnesses.
78. It is contended and is also mentioned in written submissions also that accused was arrested in a kalandra initially under Section 107 /151 of Cr.P.C. but this kalandra is suppressed in the present charge sheet. However, if a kalandra was made, it is separate proceeding and has nothing to do with the present case.
79. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death is Septicemic shock consequent upon antemortem injury to head as a result of blunt force impact and as per subsequent opinion, it was opined by doctor that injuries are antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature.
80. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention deliberately gave beatings to deceased Hamidan who was their neighbour, with
