This judgment alters the conviction and sentence only. It does not acquit the appellant: he stands convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325 IPC, and the fine of Rs 50,000 with four months' rigorous imprisonment in default is upheld. The co-accused's acquittal by the trial court was not in issue before the High Court.
- Case
- Sanjay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:DHC:9966
- Bench
- Madhu Jain
- Judgment by
- Madhu Jain
- Case numbers
- Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2025
- Outcome
- Criminal appeal partly allowed: the conviction under section 304 Part II IPC is set aside and substituted with a conviction under section 325 IPC, and the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
The decision
The Delhi High Court has altered the conviction of Sanjay Kumar, the manager of a de-addiction centre in Delhi, from culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code to grievous hurt under section 325 IPC, and reduced his custodial sentence to the period already undergone. Justice Madhu Jain delivered the judgment on 6 November 2026.
The trial court had imposed five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000. The High Court held that the prosecution had proved that he intentionally inflicted grievous abdominal injuries on the inmate, Varun Kumar Verma, who died eight days later, but had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he knew death was likely.
Background: the assault at the de-addiction centre
On 2 July 2013, Arun Kumar admitted his brother, Varun Kumar Verma, to the Hari Darshan De-addiction Centre at Begum Vihar, Delhi, for treatment of addiction. Kumar managed the centre and Rajesh Kumar worked there as caretaker; the monthly charge was Rs 4,500, of which Rs 1,000 was paid and Rs 3,500 remained outstanding.
On 7 July 2013, Arun Kumar visited the centre to meet his brother, who said he did not wish to remain there as he was being beaten by the staff. When Arun Kumar tried to take him home, the accused refused to let him leave without the outstanding Rs 3,500. The prosecution's case was that Rajesh Kumar caught hold of Arun Kumar while Sanjay Kumar dragged Varun Kumar inside and repeatedly kicked and punched him, particularly on his abdomen.
The deceased was taken to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital that night, complaining of abdominal pain; a history of assault was recorded only on a second visit at about 1.30 a.m. on 8 July 2013. He underwent abdominal surgery for intestinal perforation at Jaipur Golden Hospital and died on 15 July 2013. The post-mortem attributed death to septicemic shock associated with damage to the abdominal structures consequent to blunt-force impact. FIR No. 220/2013 was registered at Police Station Begum Pur.
The trial court acquitted Rajesh Kumar for want of common intention, but convicted Sanjay Kumar under section 304 Part II, holding that the circumstances sufficed to attribute the knowledge that provision contemplates, though he had no intention to cause death. By its order on sentence dated 1 March 2025, it imposed five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50,000, with four months' rigorous imprisonment in default, granting the benefit of section 428 CrPC.
The issue before the Court
Two questions arose. First, whether the injuries sustained by Varun Kumar Verma could be attributed to the appellant. Second, whether the circumstances in which those injuries were inflicted established the knowledge necessary to sustain a conviction under section 304 Part II IPC.
The rule: knowledge is distinct from intention, and from the result
Section 304 Part II does not punish every assault that results in death. It requires that the accused committed the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Knowledge may be inferred from the manner of assault, the nature of the injuries intended, the part of the body targeted and the surrounding circumstances — but it cannot be inferred solely from the fact that the injured person subsequently died. Intention and knowledge are distinct: intention contemplates the intended death, while knowledge contemplates awareness of the likelihood of death.
Explanation 2 to section 299 IPC recognises that the person causing bodily injury may remain responsible for the resulting death even though proper treatment might have prevented it — so the eight-day interval did not by itself break the causal connection.
The reasoning: the assault is proved; the knowledge is not
The Court found sufficient evidence that the appellant injured the deceased. The prosecution rested substantially on Arun Kumar (PW-1), the only eyewitness examined, who attributed fist and kick blows on the abdomen to the appellant. The medical record corroborated him: the medico-legal case recorded multiple abrasions and bruises, and the post-mortem connected the death with traumatic intestinal perforations.
The Court acknowledged the weaknesses in the prosecution case. The history of assault was not recorded during the first hospital visit at about 10 p.m. on 7 July 2013, but only on the second visit at about 1.30 a.m. The trial court had assumed the doctors might simply not have recorded it; the High Court held that cannot be presumed without evidence. The omission called for caution, but did not justify rejecting PW-1's entire account, since the deceased himself later furnished the history of assault. The investigation was also defective: no statement was recorded from any inmate or employee, and no CCTV footage was checked. Defective investigation, however, does not by itself absolve an accused where the available evidence otherwise establishes the occurrence.
On knowledge, the Court disagreed with the trial court. The trial court had attributed knowledge to the appellant on the ground that the deceased was undergoing treatment at a de-addiction centre and the appellant ought to have known his health condition. The High Court held that the mere fact of addiction treatment, without more, cannot establish that the appellant knew the injuries likely to result could cause death, and no material showed he was aware of any specific medical condition making the deceased particularly vulnerable. Repeated kicks to the abdomen cannot be regarded as harmless, but no weapon was used, the force used was not detailed, and the incident arose suddenly over a payment dispute. Knowledge of the precise internal injuries is not required — but the prosecution must still prove awareness that death was a likely consequence, and it had not done so beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court therefore held the act attracted section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt): intentional infliction of bodily harm was proved, but not the knowledge section 304 Part II requires.
The outcome: conviction altered, sentence reduced
The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under section 304 Part II IPC was set aside and substituted with a conviction under section 325 IPC. On sentence, the Court noted that the incident dated from 2013, that the appellant had faced proceedings for a considerable period, that the occurrence was not premeditated, and that the trial court had noticed his family circumstances. Having regard to the offence now established and the period undergone — about one year of the five-year sentence, as recorded when the sentence was suspended on 26 February 2026 — the Court limited the custodial sentence to the period already undergone.
The fine of Rs 50,000 and the default sentence of four months' rigorous imprisonment were upheld. Subject to payment of the fine, he need undergo no further substantive imprisonment and is to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This judgment turns on the distinction between the act and the mind that accompanies it. The same blows can support section 325 IPC (grievous hurt) and fail under section 304 Part II (culpable homicide) if the prosecution cannot prove the accused knew death was likely. For that knowledge the Court required circumstances showing the accused's awareness that death was likely — not the fact of death, nor the victim's vulnerability in the abstract.
The judgment also shows how appellate courts treat imperfect prosecutions. A discrepancy in the medical record and a defective investigation do not automatically defeat a conviction: the court weighs them against corroboration, and asks whether the available evidence, taken together, establishes the occurrence.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court hold that the prosecution had proved grievous hurt under section 325 IPC but not the knowledge required for section 304 Part II IPC?
- How did the Court deal with the delay in recording the history of assault in the medico-legal case, and with the gaps in the investigation?
- What factors led the Court to reduce the custodial sentence to the period already undergone, and what part of the trial court's sentence did it leave untouched?
