In Sanjay Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (CRL.A. 647/2025, pronounced 6 November 2026), Justice Madhu Jain of the High Court of Delhi partly allowed the appeal of a de-addiction centre operator convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for the death of an inmate following an assault over unpaid dues. The court sustained the findings that the appellant inflicted the abdominal injuries and that the death — eight days later, from septicemia traced to traumatic intestinal perforation — was causally connected to them. What the prosecution failed to prove was the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. The conviction was altered to Section 325 IPC and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
The case in one view
| Case | Sanjay Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 647/2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Madhu Jain J |
| Pronounced | 6 November 2026 (reserved 2 November 2026) |
| Provisions | Sections 304 Part II, 299, 323, 325, 341 IPC; appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS |
| Outcome | Conviction altered to Section 325 IPC; sentence reduced to period undergone; fine maintained |
The background
The deceased was admitted to a de-addiction centre in Delhi run by the appellant in July 2013. Five days later his brother came to take him home; the staff refused release until outstanding charges were paid, an altercation followed, and the brother’s account was that the appellant dragged the deceased into a room and struck him in the abdomen. The deceased went to hospital that night complaining of abdominal pain; on a second visit hours later an assault history was recorded. He was moved through two more hospitals, underwent surgery for intestinal perforation, and died a week after the incident. The post-mortem attributed death to septicemic shock with blunt-force damage to abdominal structures. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC in January 2025 and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000; a co-accused was acquitted.
What stood: the assault and the causal chain
The High Court sustained the finding that the appellant inflicted the abdominal injuries, resting on the brother’s testimony and the medico-legal record, and held the death causally connected to those injuries. The eight-day interval, the inter-hospital transfers and the initial omission of an assault history did not break the chain; Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC answers precisely the argument that proper treatment might have saved the victim. The court also accepted that, in principle, “knowledge of the precise internal injuries is not an essential requirement of Section 304 Part II IPC.”
What fell: knowledge of likely death
The alteration turned on the mental element. The trial court had inferred knowledge from the deceased’s status as a person under addiction treatment; the High Court found that insufficient absent evidence that the appellant knew of any specific vulnerability. No weapon was used; the incident erupted suddenly out of a dispute over dues. What the evidence did establish was the intentional infliction of blows to the abdomen causing grievous injuries:
From the judgment: “the evidence does establish that the appellant intentionally inflicted bodily injuries upon the deceased” — and accordingly, “The conviction deserves to be altered to one under Section 325 IPC.”
On sentence, with about a year’s imprisonment already undergone before suspension, the court reduced the substantive sentence to the period served, maintaining the fine and its default term, with release formalities subject to the nominal roll.
What the decision means in practice
The wider frame
The gradation from Section 302 through Section 304 to the hurt offences is where Indian homicide law does its finest sorting, and appellate courts police the boundaries through exactly this kind of analysis: act proved, causation proved, mental element tested on its own evidence. The judgment also carries a quiet systemic note — the incident dates to 2013, the trial verdict to 2025, the appeal to 2026. Thirteen years from altercation to final characterisation is its own commentary on the docket, and a reminder that sentence arithmetic at the appellate stage often turns on custody already served.
Frequently Asked Questions
What separates Section 304 Part II from Section 325 IPC?
Knowledge. Section 304 Part II punishes culpable homicide where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, without intention to kill. Where that knowledge is not proved but the accused intentionally caused grievous hurt, Section 325 applies. Here, no weapon was used, the incident arose suddenly over dues, and no evidence showed the appellant knew of any particular vulnerability of the deceased.
Did the eight-day gap between assault and death break the causal chain?
No. The deceased moved through three hospitals and underwent abdominal surgery before dying of septicemic shock; the post-mortem and a subsequent certificate traced the septicemia to traumatic intestinal perforations. Invoking Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC, the court held the intervening treatment did not sever causation.
Why did the first hospital visit matter to the defence?
The deceased initially reported only abdominal pain, with the assault history recorded on his return a few hours later. The defence pressed the discrepancy, but the court held it did not dislodge the eyewitness account of the brother and the MLC that followed — the factual findings on the assault stood.
What was the final sentence?
With the conviction altered to Section 325 IPC, the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, subject to verification of the nominal roll; the fine of Rs 50,000 with its default term was maintained. The appellant, whose five-year sentence had been suspended pending appeal, was not required to serve further imprisonment.