JUDGMENT Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 20.12.2019 in S.C. No. 1161 of 2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottarakkara. This is a case of matricide, and the appellant is the sole accused who was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for committing offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant herein stands charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for committing the offence of matricide and causing the disappearance of evidence. 3. Radha, a 65-year-old woman, the mother of the appellant, was residing at Palonam in Kadakkal along with the appellant’s wife (PW4) and his two children. The appellant used to regularly pick up quarrels with his mother and wife, which often led to physical violence, due to which the wife and children were living separately at a place called Kunnikode. The prosecution alleges that on 20.05.2017, the appellant, in an inebriated state, started to torture his mother. At about 4:00 p.m., while his mother was standing in the northern courtyard of her house, he attacked her with a rubber tree stick and caused injuries. After inflicting injuries, he dragged her to the house and deserted her. It is alleged that he later burned the stick he had used, as it bore the blood stains of his mother. She was left unattended without medical care for about 8 days. On 28.05.2017, as Radha was found lying in a comatose state, the appellant called Anju (PW4) for assistance, and they took Radha to the Kadakkal Taluk Hospital. Radha was seen by PW9, the Casualty Medical Officer, who, after providing first aid, referred her to the Medical College Hospital (“MCH”), Thiruvananthapuram. She was seen by the Head of the Department and Professor (Medicine), MCH, Thiruvananthapuram. He noted numerous injuries on the body of the deceased. The next day, Radha succumbed to the injuries. 4. At 10:00 a.m., on 29.05.2017, PW15, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadakkal Police Station, recorded the statement of Latha (PW1), a Member of the Kadakkal Grama Panchayat and registered Ext.P17 FIR under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The Member expressed doubt with regard to the cause of death of Radha. 5. Dr. Seena (PW13), the Assistant Professor and Assistant Police Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, MCH, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted the postmortem and issued Ext.P13 Postmortem Certificate. 5. Dr. Seena (PW13), the Assistant Professor and Assistant Police Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, MCH, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted the postmortem and issued Ext.P13 Postmortem Certificate. She noted as many as 22 injuries on the body of Radha, which include healing wounds, contusions, abrasions and subarachnoid haemorrhage. On the basis of the findings in the post-mortem report, Ext.P18 report was submitted, incorporating Section 302 of the IPC. 6. Investigation was then taken over by Sani S. (PW16), the Grade Inspector of the Kadakkal Police Station. He recorded the statements of the neighbours and prepared Ext.P9 Scene Mahazar. On 29.05.2017, at 7:30 p.m., the appellant was arrested as per Ext.P19 arrest memo. Ext.P23 report was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate, incorporating Sections 341, 324 and 201 of the IPC. On interrogating the accused, he is alleged to have disclosed that the stick which was used for inflicting the injuries was burned and though an attempt was made to collect the remnants, it did not yield any result. After concluding the investigation, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. After initiating the committal proceedings in accordance with law, the case was committed to the Court of Session, from where the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottarakkara. 8. On the accused appearing before the Court, after following the procedure, the charge was read over, to which he pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 16, and through them, Exts. P1 to P24 were exhibited and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising from the evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He emphatically denied the circumstances. On the side of the defence, the stepsister of the deceased was examined as DW1. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluation of the entire evidence let in by the prosecution as well as the defence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had convincingly established that the appellant had inflicted fatal injuries on the head of his mother and thereafter abandoned her without providing medical aid for 8 days, resulting in her death. The learned Sessions Judge also noted that the deceased had a history of Vulnerable Neurological Disorder, and the appellant was aware that his mother was frail and suffering from illness. The learned Sessions Judge also noted that the deceased had a history of Vulnerable Neurological Disorder, and the appellant was aware that his mother was frail and suffering from illness. The very act of the accused in inflicting severe blows with a heavy stick, leading to haemorrhage in the brain, led the learned Sessions Judge to arrive at the conclusion that the accused was fully aware that the fatal blow on the head would be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause his death. His act of abandoning his mother without providing medical aid after inflicting such severe injuries was also held to be a reason to conclude that the accused was having the intention to cause the death of his mother. Holding so, he was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 10. Sri. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, advanced the following contentions to assail the finding of guilt: a) The learned Sessions Judge has erred in placing reliance on the evidence tendered by PW3, the alleged eyewitness, whose evidence was discrepant in material particulars. Despite having an occasion to witness the incident, he did not set the law in motion or take any measures to provide medical aid to the victim or intervene in the matter. This is despite the fact that his brother, who was examined as PW5, was a police man. Even with regard to his version of the incident and the nature of the weapon used, there was no consistency. However, all these aspects were ignored by the learned Sessions Judge. b) The learned Sessions Judge has also erred in placing reliance on the evidence of PW5, as his version before the court was highly embellished. c) The learned Sessions Judge has erred in not properly appreciating the evidence of PW9, the Casualty Medical Officer of the Kadakkal Taluk Hospital, where the injured was taken by the accused and his wife on 28.05.2017. The Doctor had no occasion to notice any injuries on the body of the deceased. c) The learned Sessions Judge has erred in not properly appreciating the evidence of PW9, the Casualty Medical Officer of the Kadakkal Taluk Hospital, where the injured was taken by the accused and his wife on 28.05.2017. The Doctor had no occasion to notice any injuries on the body of the deceased. d) It is submitted that the failure of the police to detect the weapon of offence is fatal, and the same would adversely affect the genuineness of the prosecution case. e) The delay in registering the crime is also highlighted as yet another reason to doubt the prosecution version. 11. Smt. Neema K.V., the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has evaluated the entire evidence in its proper perspective and has arrived at the finding of guilt. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, a reading of the evidence of PWs 3 and 5, coupled with the medical evidence, would clearly reveal that the prosecution has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. We have gone through the evidence and also the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. 13. The first question is whether the death of Radha was homicidal. The prosecution relies on the evidence of PW3 (Sujith), a Postgraduate student residing on the western side of the house of Radha, to bring home the point that, on 20.5.2017 at about 04:00 p.m., he heard a hue and cry from the house of the deceased. He is alleged to have witnessed the accused inflicting a blow on the head of Radha. He also stated that thereafter he had no occasion to see the deceased in and around the house. We shall deal with the evidence of PW3 in detail at a later stage. 14. Though the incident took place on 20.05.2017, Radha was not provided any medical aid. It was only on 28.05.2017 that she was taken to the Kadakkal Taluk Hospital. PW9, the Casualty Medical Officer attached to the Kadakkal Taluk Hospital, stated that the victim had injuries on her head. PW9 also stated that he found bedsores on the body of the deceased. However, he stated that he omitted to record the injuries in detail since he had no reason to doubt the version of the son who had brought the injured to the hospital. PW9 also stated that he found bedsores on the body of the deceased. However, he stated that he omitted to record the injuries in detail since he had no reason to doubt the version of the son who had brought the injured to the hospital. His endeavour was to stabilise the patient and to transport her in an Ambulance equipped with emergency care and ventilator to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 15. PW12 is the Professor and HOD (Medicine) who treated the victim at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, when she was admitted on 28.05.2017. Through him, Ext.P12 treatment certificate, Ext.P14 referral letter and Ext.P15 case sheet were marked. According to him, Radha passed away on 29.05.2017. He stated that Radha had sustained a lacerated wound on the left side of her scalp with dimensions 4x3 cm, and he also noted a contusion on the right side of the neck. She was also found to be having bedsores on her sacral region. He noted multiple abrasions on the right shoulder and right elbow. He added that the lacerated wound noted on the head could have been inflicted with a blunt object. When a pointed question was put to him as to whether the injury could be caused by hitting with a rubber stick, he answered in the affirmative. He also added that the patient was in a coma when she was brought to the hospital. According to him, he suggested an autopsy as the lacerated wound was noticed on the scalp. Though the witness was cross-examined in detail, he maintained that the injury found on the scalp could not have been caused by just falling down after being afflicted by epilepsy. He also added that clinically, the patient was not found to be suffering from epilepsy. He stated that the patient died due to bleeding from the head injury. 16. PW13 was the Assistant Professor and Assistant Police Surgeon who had conducted the autopsy over the body of Radha. Through her, Ext.P13 Postmortem Certificate was marked. Apart from abrasions and bruises, the Doctor noted the following injuries on the head of the deceased : a) Healing wound 7 x 1.5 x 0.2 cm on the top and front of left side of head, its front extending 8.5 cm above eyebrow and 2.5 cm outer to midline.. Through her, Ext.P13 Postmortem Certificate was marked. Apart from abrasions and bruises, the Doctor noted the following injuries on the head of the deceased : a) Healing wound 7 x 1.5 x 0.2 cm on the top and front of left side of head, its front extending 8.5 cm above eyebrow and 2.5 cm outer to midline.. b) Contusion 5x4x.8 cm on the left side of the back of head just behind the root of ear. c) Contusion 4x3x.8 cm on the back of head in midline 3 cm below occiput. d) Contusion 7x7x1 cm on the right side of the back of head just behind the root of the ear. There were patchy areas of subarachnoid haemorrhage(dark red) in the brain. There were constitution ( yellowish brown in colour) .8x3x2.5 cm on the right occipital and adjoining temporal lobe and constitution 3x3x2 cm on the right cerebellum. The brain in the contused area was soft. There was flattening of gyri and narrowing of sulci of brain e) Contusion 4.5 x 3 x 1 cm on the right side of front of neck, 3 cm above inner end of collar bone f) Contusion 15 x 9 x 1 cm on the right side and right side of back of head, its front extent just below and just in front of lobule of ear. Flap dissection of the neck was done under a bloodless field. There were infiltration in fat and subcutaneous tissue 13x9x0.5 cm on right side of front of neck and adjoining front of chest and 7 x 5 x 0.3 cm on the left side of front of neck and adjoining chest. Other neck structures were normal and intact. The Doctor stated that the death was due to blunt injuries sustained to the head. In view of the above evidence, it can safely be concluded that the death of Radha was a case of homicide and not due to an accidental fall. 17. In order to establish the incident, the prosecution examined several witnesses to prove the occurrence of the assault and the subsequent death of Radha. 18. PW1, the elected Ward Member of Attupuram Ward, deposed that she approached the Police and lodged the First Information Statement (Ext.P1) after learning of Radha’s death at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 17. In order to establish the incident, the prosecution examined several witnesses to prove the occurrence of the assault and the subsequent death of Radha. 18. PW1, the elected Ward Member of Attupuram Ward, deposed that she approached the Police and lodged the First Information Statement (Ext.P1) after learning of Radha’s death at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She further testified that local residents expressed serious doubts regarding the cause of death, prompting her to alert the authorities. 19. PW2, a near relative of the deceased, was examined to prove certain preliminary facts connected to the incident. However, she failed to support the prosecution’s case, and her testimony did not speak in tune with the prosecution narrative. 20. PW3 (Sujith), a tuition teacher by professor and an immediate neighbour of the deceased whose residence lay on the western side of Radha’s house, was the crucial eyewitness examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. He stated that Radha lived with her son immediately to the east of his property. According to him, the accused was a habitual alcoholic who frequently quarrelled with his mother. Sujith testified that on 20.05.2017 at approximately 4:00 p.m., while watching television, he heard loud cries from Radha’s house. On stepping outside, he saw the accused and Radha near the backyard well, and the accused was found striking Radha on the head with a round wooden stick. Radha collapsed to the ground from the force of the blow. Sujith admitted that he did not intervene and returned to his house, and that he never again saw Radha alive. Later, he learned that Radha had been taken first to the Taluk Hospital at Kadakkal and then shifted to the Medical College Hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries during treatment. He further recalled that two or three days prior, at about 7:30–8:00 p.m., he had heard cries from Radha’s house. His brother Shyam (PW5), a Police Constable, went to investigate and intervened in a violent altercation between the accused, his wife, and their children. Sujith stated that, along with his other brothers, he witnessed Shyam arrange for an autorickshaw to take the accused’s wife and children to her parental home for safety. During cross-examination, the defence questioned Sujith about his ability to remember the exact date of the fatal incident. He replied that the shocking nature of the assault had etched the details indelibly in his memory. During cross-examination, the defence questioned Sujith about his ability to remember the exact date of the fatal incident. He replied that the shocking nature of the assault had etched the details indelibly in his memory. Despite extensive cross-examination, the defence could not discredit his testimony. 21. PW4, the wife of the accused, turned hostile and did not substantively support the prosecution. She merely admitted that she had heard her mother-in-law was unwell on 20.05.2017. 22. PW5, Shyam, the elder brother of PW3 and a Police Constable, confirmed that he lived west of the deceased’s house. He identified the accused in court and testified that the accused was an alcoholic prone to quarrels with both his wife and his mother. Because such disputes were frequent, he often ignored them; however, on one occasion, he intervened. He and his brothers went to the house of the accused after hearing cries. There, they found the accused assaulting his wife while his mother lay on the ground, weeping. Shyam pushed the accused aside and, on speaking with the wife and mother, learned that they were suffering continuous harassment and cruelty. Although he offered to inform the police, the accused’s wife declined, fearing repercussions later. Shyam then arranged an autorickshaw to take the wife and children to her parental home and advised the mother to contact him if future problems arose. He subsequently learned from his brother that the accused had inflicted injuries on his mother and that, despite medical treatment, she had died. 23. PW6 and PW7 were examined as attestors to the scene mahazar (Ext.P9). PW8 attested the inquest report (Ext.P10). PW11, the Village Officer of Kadakkal, prepared the property sketch marked as Ext.P11, thereby establishing the topographical details of the scene of occurrence. 24. On the side of the defence, the step-sister of the deceased, one Baby, was examined as DW1. She testified that she maintained a close relationship with Radha but professed ignorance as to whether Radha’s husband was alive. She stated that the accused took care of his mother and that there were no quarrels between them. She further deposed that Radha suffered from epilepsy and would collapse during seizures. According to her, Radha could have fallen and injured herself, and the accused had no involvement in the fatal injuries. 25. As is evident from the record, the case rests on the testimony of PW3, PW5, PW9, PW12 and PW13. She further deposed that Radha suffered from epilepsy and would collapse during seizures. According to her, Radha could have fallen and injured herself, and the accused had no involvement in the fatal injuries. 25. As is evident from the record, the case rests on the testimony of PW3, PW5, PW9, PW12 and PW13. With particular reference to PW3, the principal ocular witness, the learned counsel appearing for the defence advanced several arguments in an effort to impeach his credibility. It was contended that PW3 had not maintained a consistent account regarding the weapon of offence. In his statement to the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he described the weapon simply as a “stick.” In the final report, the weapon was described as a “rubber stick,” whereas during his deposition before the Court, PW3 referred to it as a “rounded stick.” The defence highlighted these variations to suggest that his version was unreliable. The learned Sessions Judge, however, rightly observed that such minor variations are neither unusual nor material. A lay witness describing an ordinary blunt object may, without contradiction, refer to it at different times as a stick, a round stick, or a rubber stick. We are equally unpersuaded that this discrepancy undermines the substance of his testimony. The defence further argued that PW3’s precise recollection of the date of the incident was inconsistent with his inability to recall unrelated dates, such as the date on which he passed certain examinations or the date of his father’s death. We find no merit in this contention. PW3 consistently maintained that he personally witnessed the brutal assault in which the accused struck his own mother with a stick, and he explained that the gravity of that event etched the date indelibly in his memory. It was next contended that PW3 testified falsely at the behest of his brother, PW5, who serves as a Police Constable. This argument is equally untenable. PW5 was examined not in his official capacity as a Police Officer but as an independent neighbour residing immediately west of the deceased’s house. Both brothers gave a clear and coherent account of their version and their testimonies were subjected to thorough cross-examination without any material contradiction. We find no circumstance to suggest bias or collusion. PW5 was examined not in his official capacity as a Police Officer but as an independent neighbour residing immediately west of the deceased’s house. Both brothers gave a clear and coherent account of their version and their testimonies were subjected to thorough cross-examination without any material contradiction. We find no circumstance to suggest bias or collusion. Accordingly, we concur with the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of PW3 and PW5 is trustworthy and provides a graphic and reliable description of the manner in which the offence was committed. 26. The next contention of the learned counsel is that PW3 had only seen the infliction of a single blow on the skull of the deceased. The medical evidence in this case reveals a series of extremely serious injuries, particularly to the head and neck. The post-mortem certificate notes several deep contusions on different parts of the scalp, including a healing wound measuring 7×1.5 0.2 cm on the top and front of the left side of the head, a 5×4×0.8 cm contusion behind the left ear, another 4×3×0.8cm contusion along the midline below the occiput, and a 7×7×1cm contusion behind the right ear. Internally, there were patchy areas of subarachnoid haemorrhage and widespread contusions in the brain itself, including 8×3×2.5cm lesion on the right occipital and adjoining temporal lobe and 3×3×2cm lesion on the right cerebellum. The contused areas of the brain were soft, and the gyri were flattened with narrowing of the sulci, all of which are classic signs of significant traumatic brain injury and raised intracranial pressure. Other injuries include a 4.5×3×1cm contusion on the front of the neck and a massive 15×9×1cm contusion extending from the right side back of neck to the front of lobule of ear, with further infiltration of the subcutaneous tissues of the neck and chest. These findings demonstrate that the victim suffered multiple, forceful blunt impacts to vital areas of the body. The mere fact that PW3 testified to having witnessed only a single blow cannot, by itself, lead to the inference that the deceased sustained only one injury. PW3 clearly stated that after observing the initial assault, the accused dragged his mother inside the house, thereby preventing further observation of the incident. PW3 then returned indoors and was no longer in a position to see what transpired thereafter. PW3 clearly stated that after observing the initial assault, the accused dragged his mother inside the house, thereby preventing further observation of the incident. PW3 then returned indoors and was no longer in a position to see what transpired thereafter. The medical evidence, however, unequivocally establishes that the appellant continued his attack and inflicted multiple additional injuries to the head. The postmortem findings, showing several distinct contusions and extensive intracranial haemorrhage, corroborate this conclusion and dispel any suggestion that the fatal injuries resulted from a single strike. Thus, the limited scope of the eyewitness account reflects only the extent of PW3’s opportunity to observe, not the entirety of the assault itself. 27. In Anda And Others v. State Of Rajasthan , 1966 AIR SC 148 , the Apex Court had to deal with a case wherein several accused beat the victim with sticks after dragging him into a house and caused multiple injuries, including 16 lacerated wounds on the arms and legs, a hematoma on the forehead and a bruise on the chest. Under these injuries to the arms and legs lay fractures of the right and left ulnas, second and third metacarpal bones on the right hand and second metacarpal bone of the left hand, compound fractures of the right tibia and right fibula. There was loss of blood from the injuries. The medical officer who conducted the autopsy opined that the cause of the death was shock and syncope due to multiple injuries; that all the injuries collectively could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, but individually none of them was so sufficient. 28. Question arose whether, in such a case when no significant injury had been inflicted on a vital part of the body, and the weapons used were ordinary lathis, and the accused could not be said to have the intention of causing death, the offence would be “murder” or merely “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”. The Apex Court, speaking through Hidayatullah, J., after explaining the comparative scope of and the distinction between Sections 299 and 300, answered the question in these terms: “The injuries were not on a vital part of the body and no weapon was used which can be described as specially dangerous. Only lathis were used. The Apex Court, speaking through Hidayatullah, J., after explaining the comparative scope of and the distinction between Sections 299 and 300, answered the question in these terms: “The injuries were not on a vital part of the body and no weapon was used which can be described as specially dangerous. Only lathis were used. It cannot, therefore, be said safely that there was an intention to cause the death of Bherun within the first clause of Section 300. At the same time, it is obvious that his hands and legs were smashed and numerous bruises and lacerated wounds were caused. The number of injuries shows that everyone joined in beating him. It is also clear that the assailants aimed at breaking his arms and legs. Looking at the injuries caused to Bherun in furtherance of the common intention of all it is clear that the injuries intended to be caused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature even if it cannot be said that his death was intended. This is sufficient to bring the case within thirdly of Section 300. 29. The ratio of Anda And Others (supra) applies in full force to the facts of the present case. 30. In Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh , 2025 INSC 1107 , the Apex Court was confronted with the question as to whether in a case where the prosecution has proved that the injury inflicted on the victim was fatal and that the accused intended to cause death, the offence still amount to murder if the victim’s death occurred only after several days owing to supervening medical complications or other intervening circumstances. The issue required the Apex Court to examine the principles of causation and the effect of delayed death on criminal liability under Section 300 of the IPC. The Apex Court answered this question in the affirmative and, in doing so, reiterated and clarified certain broad principles to guide the Courts. These principles emphasise that once it is established that the act of the accused inflicted an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the mere lapse of time between the assault and the eventual death, whether due to medical complications, infections, or other supervening factors, does not dilute the culpability for murder. These principles emphasise that once it is established that the act of the accused inflicted an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the mere lapse of time between the assault and the eventual death, whether due to medical complications, infections, or other supervening factors, does not dilute the culpability for murder. The Apex Court laid down the following principles for guidance: a) If it is proved that the injury was fatal and the intention was to cause death, though the death occurred after several days of septicaemia or other complications having supervened, yet it is undoubtedly a murder as it falls within the first limb of Section 300 of the IPC. b) If it is proved that the injuries by themselves were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and if it is established that those injuries were the intended injuries, though the death might have occurred after septicaemia or other complications had supervened, yet the act of the accused would squarely fall under the third limb of Section 300 of the IPC and the accused is therefore liable to be punished under Section 302 of the IPC. c) If it is proved that the injuries were imminently dangerous to life, though the death had occurred after septicaemia or other complications had supervened, yet the act of the accused would squarely fall under the fourth limb of Section 300 of the IPC, provided, the other requirements like knowledge on the part of the accused, etc. are satisfied and so the accused would be liable to be punished under Section 302 of the IPC. Here also, the primary cause of the death is the injuries and septicaemia. d) In judging whether the injuries inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the possibility that skilful and efficient medical treatment might prevent the fatal result is wholly irrelevant. e) If the supervening causes are attributable to the injuries caused, then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death, even if death was not the direct result of the injuries. e) If the supervening causes are attributable to the injuries caused, then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death, even if death was not the direct result of the injuries. f) Broadly speaking, the courts would have to undertake the exercise to distinguish between two types of cases; first, where the intervening cause of death, like peritonitis, is only a remote and a rather improbable consequence of the injury; then it can be said that the injury is one which may, in particular circumstances, result in death, but which may not in ordinary course of nature be likely to lead to it. Secondly, where the complication which is the intervening cause of death is itself a practically inevitable sequence to the injury. In that event, the probability is very high indeed, amounting to practical certainty i.e., death is a result in due course of natural events. A deep abdominal thrust with a knife followed by injury to the internal organs is practically certain to result in acute peritonitis causing death. It is clearly a case of murder under Section 302 and not merely of culpable homicide. g) Even when the medical evidence does not say that any one of the injuries on the body of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, yet it is open to the Court to look into the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and infer from them that the assailants intended to cause death of the deceased. If none of the injuries alone were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased, cumulatively, they may be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. h) What the courts must 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 such significance. What is significant is whether death was only a remote possibility, or is one which would have occurred in due course. An intervening cause or complication is by itself not of such significance. What is significant is whether death was only a remote possibility, or is one which would have occurred in due course. i) To sum it up, where death is delayed due to later complications or developments, the courts should consider the nature of the injury, complications or the attending circumstances. If the complications or developments are the natural, or probable, or necessary consequence of the injury, and if it is reasonably contemplated as its result, the injury could 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 then the injury cannot be said to have caused death. If 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. 31. In the case on hand, a direct causal connection between the act of the accused and the death has been established. The injuries were also the direct cause of the death. There is also no doubt whatsoever that the beating was premeditated and calculated as opined by the Doctor who conducted the autopsy. The fact that the mother used to be physically assaulted even earlier was established by examining PW3 and PW5. The aim of the appellant was to smash the skull of the deceased, and he succeeded in that design, causing no less than 22 injuries, including multiple fatal contusions on the head. The acts of the accused were preplanned and intentional, which, considered objectively in the light of the medical evidence, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The mere fact that the beating was with a stick or that she had died after a few days or that none of the multiple injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, will not exclude the application of clause thirdly of Section 300. The mere fact that the beating was with a stick or that she had died after a few days or that none of the multiple injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, will not exclude the application of clause thirdly of Section 300. The expression “bodily injury” in clause thirdly also includes its plural, so that the clause would cover a case where all the injuries intentionally caused by the accused are cumulatively sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature, even if none of those injuries individually measures up to such sufficiency. The sufficiency spoken of in this clause, as already noticed, is the high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature, and if such sufficiency exists and death is caused and the injury causing it is intentional, the case would fall under clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC. The weapon used, the size of the weapon, the place where the assault took place, the background facts leading to the assault, and the part of the body where the blow was given are factors that are to be considered. All the conditions which are a prerequisite for the applicability of this clause have been established, and the offence committed by the accused, in the instant case, was “murder”. Furthermore, the deceased was known to suffer from a vulnerable neurological disorder, and the accused was aware of her frail condition. This awareness heightens the foreseeability of death and removes any possible excuse for assuming the risk. The fact that the victim died eight days later does not break the causal chain; delayed death from intracranial bleeding and brain swelling is a well-recognised consequence of severe head trauma. 32. In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has evaluated the entire evidence and has rightly arrived at the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. This Appeal is dismissed.