Short Note : 1. The deceased Gyanwatibai resided with her four children with the appellant. in the house of Bhurkanbai (P.W. 1) for, the last five years. At about midnight, Bhurkanbai (PW. 1), Nathulal (P.W. 3) and Dhansingh (P.W.4) heard, cries of Gyatnwatibai and her children. Hence, they went to the house of the appellant and found the outer door locked from inside. Despite calls, to open the door, the door was not opened and, therefore, the door was forcibly opened It, was found, that Gyanwatibai was lying close to her bed on ' the ground in a pool of blood, and the appellant was standing close to her.' He had a:blue handed, open knife (Art.C-1) in his hand, On being reprimanded by Bhurkanbai. the appellant handed over the knife to her and went out of the room without speaking any thing. Gyanwatibai also rushed out of room and fell down in. her chhapri. Gyanwatibai, was brought to Katangi police-station where she lodged the, first information report, Ex. P-34 at 4-30 a.m. on May 14, 1972. the, police-station being at a distance of eight kilometers. 2. Dr. R.S. Rajput, (P.W. 20) examined, Gyanwatibai at 6 A.M. and, as per report (Ex. P-30), found 14 incised wounds on her person caused by a hard sharp object. Between 7-20 A.M. to 8 A.M. Dr. K.R. Pachori (P.W. 21) recorded. her dying declaration (Ex. P-33) She was then sent to the main hospital at Balaghat where, she was admitted as an indoor patient at, 1-30 P.M. 3. On. May 14, 1972, Dr. A.P. Mahajan (PW. 19) performed an operation on Gyanwatibai. She, after the operation, survived till 6 P.M. of May 19, 1972 and thereafter expired. Marg intimation (Ex. P-8) was then registered and an inquest was held over her dead-body as per Panchnama, Ex. P-12. Dr. Mahajan performed the postmortem examination and found numerous incised wounds on the person, of the deceased. As per, report (Ex. P-13), he opined that injury No 5, as written in the report, was sufficient in the ordinary Course of nature to cause death. He further stated that all the injuries, found on the person of the deceased taken together could also cause death by producing Shock. He was further of the view that Gyanwatibai had recovered from shock because of effective medical treatment. He further stated that all the injuries, found on the person of the deceased taken together could also cause death by producing Shock. He was further of the view that Gyanwatibai had recovered from shock because of effective medical treatment. He was further of the view that the cause of death was, not multiple injuries. The deceased developed hyper-pyrexia, i.e, high temperature just few hours; before her, death. This development was as a result of atmospheric temperature on weak" debilitated individual who was already having some temperature. Thus, the opinion of Dr. A.P. Mahajan was that the deceased did not die as a result of multiple injuries on her person, but because of hyper-pyrexia as a result of atmospheric temperature on weak debilitated individual who was already having some temperature. 4. The trial Court convicted, the accused under section 302, Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 5. Held: The only point urged before us, in view of the evidence of Dr. A.P. Mahajan (P.W. 19), is that the offence would not fall under section 302 of the Penal Code. Shri Datt contended that the evidence of Dr. Mahajan excluded tile possibility that the deceased met her end because of the injuries sustained by her On the other hand; the' evidence of Dr. Mahajan established beyond doubt that she died due to hyper-pyrexia as a result of atmospheric temperature on weak debilitated individual who was already having some temperature and this development had nothing to do with the injuries sustained by the deceased. Shri M.V. Tamaskar, -Government Advocate, appearing for the State, however, refuted this argument and stated that Dr. Mahajan had given a categorical opinion that injuries suffered by Gyanwatibai were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death and the hyperpyrexia developed later on because of the weakness which the deceased had on account of the multiple injuries. We have considered these submissions and find that the argument of Shri Datt has no substance, 6. What we have to see is whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or to cause such bodily injuries as the accused knew to be likely to cause death although death was ultimately due to supervention of some other cause An intervening cause or complication is by itself not of much significance. What we have to see is whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or to cause such bodily injuries as the accused knew to be likely to cause death although death was ultimately due to supervention of some other cause An intervening cause or complication is by itself not of much significance. What is significant is whether death was only a remote possibility or is one which itself occurs in due course. 7. (After discussing medical evidence their Lordships further held :) Thus everything that flows for the cause of death of Gyanwatibai was the direct consequence of the multiple injuries sustained by her. Intervening Or supervening cause of hyper-pyrexia was the direct result of the multiple injuries and could not be independent or unconnected with the serious injuries sustained by her. We are, therefore, of the view that hyper-pyrexia was developed because the multiple injuries necessitated an operation and post operative starvation and, therefore. the death can be directly connected with the multiple injuries. Vira Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 , Kishore Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 2267 , Chilmakar v. State of A.P., AIR 1977 SC 1998 , Manjur v. State, 1961 JLJ 1414= AIR 1962 MP 244 , Brij Bhukhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 474 , Salethai v. Emperor, 36 MPLC 121=AIR 1949 Nag. 19 relied on. 8. Shri Datt relied upon a decision of this Court in Noor Khan v. State of. M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 1972 decided on 18-4-1977). In that case, the medical evidence was highly inconclusive to indicate that the injuries sustained by the deceased Chand Khan were either fatal or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the victim. In that case, besides the inconclusive opinion of the doctor, the Additional Sessions Judge believed that there was a supervening cause of death of Chand khan and further held that it was difficult to say that the death was a probable consequence of the abdominal in jury. In that case, there was no direct relationship between the death of Chandkhan and the abdominal injury. That case is clearly distinguishable from the case in hand because, in our opinion, Dr. In that case, there was no direct relationship between the death of Chandkhan and the abdominal injury. That case is clearly distinguishable from the case in hand because, in our opinion, Dr. Mahajan had definitely stated that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and hyper-pyrexia developed because of the multiple in juries coupled with post operative starvation. That case, therefore, does not help the appellant. Appeal dismissed.