Judgment :- Bhat, J. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, who acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge of murder in the Sessions Case No. 8 of 1979 2. The prosecution case may be summarised thus: Respondent's father Achuthan Nair died about two years prior to the occurrence. He had three wives. The accused is one of the children of the second wife Parvathi Aroma. Pw. 1 is the son and Pw. 2 is the daughter of the third wife Jane Amma. Achuthan Nair settled his properties on his wave and children under Ext. P2 settlement deed in 1964 Janu Amma had raised tapioca cultivation in the portion of her property situated to the west of her house. Accused claimed a portion of that land. On 30—10—1978 he went to the house of Janu Amma and told her that he was entitled to the major portion of the Jan where tapioca was planted. Janu Amma replied that after tapioca was harvested the property could be measured as per the document and he could have any portion found to be his. Respondent replied that he cannot measure the land and he will take what was his and put up a boundary and left the place. On 31-10-1978 at about 8.30 a.m. when Janu Amma and children were sitting in the verandah, respondent came there armed with No.1 spade, passed in front of the house and He went Co the place where Janu Amma had raised tapioca cultivation. Janu Amma followed by Pws 1 and 2 went to the scene and she asked him not to dig the tapioca and assured him that after the tapioca was harvested, property could be got measured and boundary put up. Respondent asserted that he will immediately lay a boundary by digging and, also threatened to do away with Janu Amma and Pw.l. He lifted the spade, Mo 1 and with the hind blunt portion, gave a blow on Janu Amma's head injuring her and she fell down unconscious. Pws 1 and 2 cried out. Respondent dropped the spade and told Pw 2nd ran away. Pws 3 to 6 and others rushed to the scene. Pws 1 and 2 cried out. Respondent dropped the spade and told Pw 2nd ran away. Pws 3 to 6 and others rushed to the scene. Janu Amma was taken to her house, the injury bandaged and ultimately she was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, where at about ]0 30 a.m. she was admitted as an inpatient by the duty doctor, Pw15. Pw15 sent an intimation, Ext. P7 to the Medical College Police Station, where it was received only the next morning. Pwl 2, a Head-constable attached to the station, went to the hospital on 1-11-78 at 9 a.m., found that Janu Amma could not talk and recorded Ext. PI statement from Pwl and prepared the body note of Janu Amma. At the station, another head constable of police, Pw13, prepared Ext. P8 F F.R at 9.45 p.m. on the basis of Exts P7 and PI and registered a case as crime No. 609/TR/79 and transferred the same to Kunna-mangalam police station within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place. Pw14, Head constable attached to Kunnamangalarn police station, reregistered the case as crime No. 119 of 1978 under Ext. P9 F.I.R. 3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamangalam Pw16, took up investigation. He prepared scene mahazar Ext. P12 and seized Nod. He seized Mos. 2 and 3 as produced by Pwl under Ext. P13. He questioned Pwl and others. On 9-1J-1978, respondent surrendered in court. Janu Amma's condition improved for some days after operation, but she died on 11-11-1978. On receiving information about it on 12-11 -1978, Pw16 sent Ext. P14 report to the court to alter section as 302 IPC. He held inquest over the body and prepared Ext. P!5 inquest report. On 12-11-1978, Pw17, Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamangalam took up investigation. He questioned Pws 2 to 7, 9 and others. After completing the investigation Pw17 laid the charge on 31-1-79. 4. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Kunnamangalam committed the respondent-accused to stand his trial before the Sessions Court. 5. On the appearance of the respondent, who was on bail and was defended, Sessions Judge, Kozhikode framed a charge as aforesaid against him. Respondent pleaded not guilty Prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Exts. Pi to P16, Mos. 1 to 3 and Ext. Dl were marked. The defence did not tender any oral evidence. 6. 5. On the appearance of the respondent, who was on bail and was defended, Sessions Judge, Kozhikode framed a charge as aforesaid against him. Respondent pleaded not guilty Prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Exts. Pi to P16, Mos. 1 to 3 and Ext. Dl were marked. The defence did not tender any oral evidence. 6. When questioned, the respondent stated that he wanted to sell his property to arrange his sister's marriage and refused to sell it to Janu Amma and Pwl, because they wanted half the price to be reserved for later payment, that on 30-!0-!978 he agreed to sell the property to one Mayan Kutty and this enraged Pwl, that on 31-10-1978 he went to his property for work as usual and Pwl came there armed with a chopper asking him whether he would sell the property to others, that the respondent felt afraid and ran, that Janu Amma, who was grazing a cow, remonstrated with Pwl for quarrelling with the respondent and she also ran up and fell from the boundary wall and because Pwl was nearby, respondent did not go near her but ran away. 7. The learned trial Judge held that it was not possible to conclude that the death of Janu Amma was the direct result of the head injury and at best it could be said that the head injury was one of the causes or basic cause which contributed to the death of Janu Amma. The learned trial Judge also found it not possible to place any reliance on the oral testimony of eye witnesses and "others, noted the short comings in the investigation and acquitted the respondent giving him the benefit of doubt. The acquittal is now challenged by the State. 8. There is no dispute before us that on the morning of 31—10 -1978, Janu Amma sustained injury at a place near her house. She was admitted in the Medical College Hospital at 10 30 a. m. by Pw15, who issued Ext. P10 wound certificate. Ext P11 is the case sheet Her condition improved for some days, but later there was a sudden deterioration and she died on. 11 — 11 — 1978. Ext. P15 is the inquest report prepared by Pw. 16. Ext. P5 is the post mortem certificate issued by Pw. 10. 9. According to the evidence of Pw. 15 and Ext. Ext P11 is the case sheet Her condition improved for some days, but later there was a sudden deterioration and she died on. 11 — 11 — 1978. Ext. P15 is the inquest report prepared by Pw. 16. Ext. P5 is the post mortem certificate issued by Pw. 10. 9. According to the evidence of Pw. 15 and Ext. P10, Janu Amma, who was unconscious at the time of admission, had only one wound, namely, a lacerated wound in the right temporoparietal region about 6 c.m. x 3 c.m. with depressed fracture of skull bone at the site. Operation revealed compound comminuted depressed fracture with laceration of brain tissue, tear of dura mater, active bleeding from the branch of middle central artery, and intra cerebral haematoma. This injury corresponded to external injury No. 1 in the post mortem certificate, Ext. P5. Post mortem showed another external injury, i e. ulceration 0.5 c. m. in diameter on the outer aspect of right forearm 5 cm. above wrist. Internal injuries corresponding to the head injury as seen in post mortem were contusion of scalp tissue, an oval bony defect on the right temporo-parietal region, softening and laceration of brain tissue and patchier haemorrhage in the midbrain and pons. The dura mater was found sutured and the middle cerebral artery was found clipped. In Ext. P5 it was stated that death was on account of head injury. 10. Pw. 10 deposed in chief examination that the deceased would have died on account of the ante-mortem head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is significant to note that there was no cross-examination of this witness on this point. Pw. 15, who issued the wound certificate, stated that operation was conducted on the patient with his assistance, that the condition of the patient improved till 9-11-1978, but on 11-11-78 it deteriorated and in spite of their measures she died. He also stated that the head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination he stated that on 11-11-1978 she lost consciousness and developed temperature and vomiting, which could have been due to intra cerebral sepsis, that the chances of sepsis was due to contact with soil and that direct cause of death could have been due to a cerebral sepsis called brain abscess. In cross-examination he stated that on 11-11-1978 she lost consciousness and developed temperature and vomiting, which could have been due to intra cerebral sepsis, that the chances of sepsis was due to contact with soil and that direct cause of death could have been due to a cerebral sepsis called brain abscess. In re-examination he stated that cerebral sepsis would have been a subsequent complication of the injury and this complication was the result of the head injury because there was laceration of the brain tissues and tear of the dura mater. In further cross-examination he stated that death was the direct result of the brain abscess and not the direct result of the injury. Fn further re-examination he stated that head injury itself was sufficient to cause death. 11. On the basis of this evidence the learned trial Judge found himself unable to come to the conclusion that death was the direct result of the head injury sustained by the deceased This view does not appear to be justified. In this connection we refer to a decision of this court in Yohannan v. Stale (1958 KLT. 273). That was a case where a parson was stabbed on the back with a pen knife. Subsequently he was found suffering from paralysis and he died more than six months after the occurrence One of the questions which arose for consideration was whether the injury inflicted by the accused was the cause of death. It was held that the injury must be regarded as the cause of death. The immediate cause of death was asthenia from cystitis and tropic changes caused by the injury to the spinal cord There were three large ulcers in the nature of bed-sores found on the body. It was held that death from cystitis and bed-sores was the direct result of the paralysis caused by the injury, in the same manner as death followed by an injury with the complication of pneumonia etc. can be said to have been caused by the injury itself The following observations are significant: — "But the position is really analogous to cases of death operating from secondary causes resulting from the injury such as pneumonia, septicemia, pyaemia and tetenus. can be said to have been caused by the injury itself The following observations are significant: — "But the position is really analogous to cases of death operating from secondary causes resulting from the injury such as pneumonia, septicemia, pyaemia and tetenus. No doubt when death is so caused, by what the medical books often call remote or indirect causes, it might be difficult to establish the mens rea necessary for the offence of murder since the more remote the cause the less possible it would be to show that the accused intended or realised the result. But where, as in the present case, the intention to cause death is clearly made out, it seems to us that it does not matter that death was caused not in the language of the medical books, directly, but by a chain of consequences, each following upon the other in the processes of nature and not being an unexpected complication causing a new mischief." 2. Mayne at page 469 of his Criminal Law of India, 4th Edn. observes: "Any act is said to cause death, within the meaning of S.299, when the death results either from the act itself, or from some consequences necessarily or naturally flowing from that act, reasonably contemplated as its result' . Taylor in Medical Jurisprudence Vol. 1 page 238, (11th Edn.) has stated: "Certain kinds of injuries are not immediately followed by serious consequences; but an injured person may die after a long or shorter period, and his death may be as much a consequence of the injury as if it had taken place on the spot. An aggressor is as responsible as if the deceased had been directly killed by his violence —provided the fatal results can be traced to the probable consequences of the injury." 13. An act is said to cause death when death results from the act itself or from some consequences necessarily or naturally flowing from the act, and reasonably contemplated as its result. An act is said to cause death when death results from the act itself or from some consequences necessarily or naturally flowing from the act, and reasonably contemplated as its result. Where without the intervention of any considerable change of circumstances death is connected with the act of violence by a chain of causes and effects, death must be regarded as the proximate and not too remote a consequence of the act The cause must not only be the causa sine qua nor, but it must also be a cause reasonably proximate; but the doctrine of criminal causation has reasonable limits. 14. An injury may lead to death. Death may be instantaneous or may be delayed. The injury may lead to shock, excessive bleeding, coma, syncope etc. and cause death; in such a case injury and death have a clearly perceptible and direct nexus and there will be no difficulty in finding that death is the direct result of injury. The decision may not be so easy in a case where death is caused not directly by the injury itself but due to a complication or development or in a case where death is not instantaneous but is delayed. Where death is delayed or due to a later complication or development, court has to consider the nature of the injury, complication or development and attendant circumstances. If the complication or development is the natural or probable or necessary consequence of the injury and if it is reasonably contemplated as its result, the injury can be said to have caused death If. on the other hand, the chain of consequences is broken or if there is unexpected complication causing new mischief, the relation of cause and effect is not established or the causal connection is too remote and the injury cannot be said to have caused death, ff the original injury itself is of a fatal nature, it makes no difference that death is actually caused by a complication naturally flowing from the injury and not the injury itself, since causal connection is proximate. 15. The injury caused to Janu Amma was a very grave injury In the words of Pws. 10 and 15, the injury led to a communized, depressed fracture, laceration of brain tissue, tear of dura mater and active bleeding with cerebral haemotoma. 15. The injury caused to Janu Amma was a very grave injury In the words of Pws. 10 and 15, the injury led to a communized, depressed fracture, laceration of brain tissue, tear of dura mater and active bleeding with cerebral haemotoma. According to them the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The development of intra cerebral sepsis o>-brain abscess could be due only to contamination. The evidence of Pvt 15 shows that this was a complication of the injury. Contamination was the direct result of the injury because of the laceration of the brain tissue and tear of dura mater. This supervening complication was the consequence which naturally flowed from the injury. Therefore we have no hesitation to conclude that the head injury caused death of Janu Amma. 16. Pws 1 to 5 are eye witnesses and Pws. 6 and 7 are witnesses who reached the scene immediately after the occurrence. Of the eye witnesses Pws I and 2 are 19 year old son and 10 year old daughter of deceased Janu Amma. Pws. 3 and 4 stated that they did not see the occurrence. They were cross-examined by the Prosecutor with the permission of the court and confronted with portions of case diary statements Exts P3 and P4 respectively. Pw. 5 was the only other eye witness, who supported the prosecution. Pws. 6 and 7 also did not see the occurrence. The learned trial Judge found certain suspicious and unsatisfactory features in the investigation and the evidence and came to the conclusion that the child witness Pw2 must have been tutored and could not have seen the occurrence, that Pw.l had an animus against the accused and required corroboration and no acceptable corroboration was forthcoming, that Pw. 5 could not have seen the occurrence at all and the evidence of the other witnesses did not help the prosecution. (Paras 17 to 23 are omitted being discussion of evidence) xxx 24 The investigation in this case also leaves much to be desired. Janu Amma, though seriously injured, regained consciousness and improved in condition for about 8 or 9 days The investigator had no case that he approached Janu Amma at any time to find if she was in a position to give a statement We have referred to the fact that a sample of soil was not taken from the scene. Mo. Janu Amma, though seriously injured, regained consciousness and improved in condition for about 8 or 9 days The investigator had no case that he approached Janu Amma at any time to find if she was in a position to give a statement We have referred to the fact that a sample of soil was not taken from the scene. Mo. 1 was not sent for chemical examination. Janu Amma died on II 11-1978. The investigator, Pw. 17, could have come into the picture only thereafter. It appears that Pw. 2 onwards were questioned only by him. This shows that material witnesses were questioned very late. The first investigator, Pw. 12, did not depose that he had questioned Pw. 2 onwards. 25. In view of these infirmities, learned trial Judge was right in holding that the testimony of Pw. 1 could not be accepted. We agree with the learned trial Judge that Pw. 2 was in all probability tutored and had not seen the occurrence and that Pw. 5 had no opportunity to witness the occurrence. The evidence and circumstances would show that the prosecution failed to prove its version of the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. The version propounded by the accused cannot be said to be improbable. Learned trial Judge was right in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitting him. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial Judge. The same is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.