THE DOCTRINE OF CAUSATION AND ITS APPLICATION IN

INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW

UTKARSH AGRAWAL1

Every criminal act can be divided into actus reus, mens rea and causation. Actus reus
deals with the ‘guilty act’, mens rea with the ‘guilty mind’ and the causation deals
with the consequences of the actus. In crimes, which require consequence like
murder, causation is a necessary and important element. The lack of causation
between the actus and the consequence may render a conviction untenable despite the
presence of the requisite mens rea and actus reus. For example, X intending to
murder Y, puts a bomb in Y’s bag. However, before the bomb could go off, Y dies in
a car accident. Here, X cannot be held liable for murder despite possessing the mens
rea to commit murder and the presence of an actus reus. X’s actus did not cause Y’s
death and therefore, while X may be liable for an attempt to murder, X cannot be held
liable for murder. Therefore, causation is an essential part of criminal law.

However, there has been very little discussion on causation as a separate and distinct
part of the Indian Criminal Law and these discussions were limited to individual cases
in which causation was merged with actus reus or mens rea. Therefore, the doctrine
of causation under the India Criminal Law remains ambiguous. This paper aims to
deal specifically with the doctrine of causation as under Indian Criminal Law.

This paper primarily deals with two basic questions:

i. What is the doctrine of causation as separate from mens rea and actus reus?
ii. The existence of the doctrine of causation as a separate entity under the IPC and
the need for it to exist separately?

This paper attempts to establish, at the risk of oversimplification, the doctrine of

causation simply as a link between the initial actus to the final consequence while
highlighting the characteristics of the doctrine as elements of the chain of causation. It
then highlights the unique approach to causation under the Indian Criminal Law and
explores the ambiguity that persists due to the same.

Part I of the paper briefly explores the doctrine of causation and its relationship to
mens rea and actus reus. Part II explores the important elements of the doctrine of
causation: causa sine qua non and novus actus interveniens. Part III explores the
applicability of the doctrine of causation in India Criminal Law specifically under
Section 304A and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Part IV discusses the
ambiguity of causation under the Indian Penal Code.

                                                                                                               
1
Utkarsh Agrawal, 3rd Year, BA LLB, West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
 I. DOCTRINE OF CAUSATION

The doctrine of causation is based on the simple premise that ‘a man can only be held
liable for the consequence of his own actions’. The entire doctrine is effectively based
on the interpretation of a single word: ‘consequence’. A liberal definition of the word
consequence extends not to only direct acts of a person but also to the acts done
through innocent agents like cases of duress, or use of infants or insane people to
commit crime. This principle of causation is best illustrated by Illustration (b) under
section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”): “A knows Z to be behind a bush.
B does not know it. A, intending to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s
death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no
offence, but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.”2 Due to this broad
and liberal nature of the doctrine of causation, it often overlaps with actus reus and
mens rea, and deals with cases of the coincidence of the mens rea and the actus reus
and the doctrine of transferred malice. In other words, as in the aforementioned
illustration, causation is also used to establish the link between the mens rea and the
final actus reus.

According to the 5th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, “….cause of an injury is the
primary or moving cause, or that which in a natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which
the accident could not have happened [Causa sine qua non], if the injury be one
which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the
wrongful act. "

The causation must therefore be a sequence of reasonable anticipated or foreseeable

natural consequence from the first link to the consequence in the form of an unbroken
chain. A person can be held responsible for all the consequences of his act that can be
reasonably expected from the same. This test of ‘reasonable expectation’ is an
exclusionary test 3 , that is, each consequence has to be ruled out based on the
individual circumstances. In a complete chain of causation, every link is a direct and
reasonably expected consequence of the previous link. For example, A fires a bullet at
a very close range with the intention to kill B. The initial act of A i.e. pulling the
trigger is the first link of the chain of causation. As a result of pulling the trigger
(Link 1), the bullet leaves gun (Link 2) and hits B’s heart (Link 3). The walls of the
heart collapse (Link 4) and B’s heart stops pumping blood to the brain (Link 5)
leading to B’s death (Result). The chain of causation here is complete for it was a
natural unbroken sequence. Pulling the trigger by A was therefore the cause of the
final result, actus reus, the death of B.

In R v Le Brun4, a man punched his wife and she fell down unconscious. While
attempting to lift and drag his wife, she slipped from his grasp leading to a fracture to
her skull and subsequent death. The man was convicted for manslaughter. In this
appeal, the court discussed the remoteness between the initial blow and the resultant
death, that is, from the first link to the final result. Despite the absence of the mens

                                                                                                               
2
Illustration (b), §299, Indian Penal Code, 1860
3
Jeremy Horder & Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law 103 (7th ed. 2013)
4
[1991] 4 All ER 673; See also, Thabo Meli v R [1954] 1 All ER 373, Privy Council
rea to kill his wife, the court held the original unlawful act was a causa sine qua non
for the resultant death of his wife and since the actions of the husband were self-
serving, the chain of causation remains unbroken. The court upheld the conviction. A
similar Indian case is King Emperor v Sree Narayan & Ors, where the accused after a
quarrel with the victim knocks her unconscious. Believing the victim to be dead, he
later burns her “body”, killing the victim.5

In the aforementioned cases, the accused is convicted despite the lack of mens rea and
the absence of a direct act resulting into death. The doctrine of causation thus cannot
be completely separated from other elements of crime and encroaches upon the
domain of both actus reus and mens rea. However, analyzing the doctrine of
causation as broad phenomenon overlapping with mens rea and actus reus yields no
information regarding about the characteristics of the doctrine and is beyond scope of
this paper. Therefore, we must limit the definition of causation to simply analyzing
the consequence as ‘a chain starting from the initial act to the final consequence, actus
reus' Simply put, a person is liable for all consequences of his act as long as the chain
of causation remains unbroken.

There are cases where the chain of causation may not be complete. This can happen
due to an external act, Novus Actus Interveniens, or the chain may just cease to exist.
An example of the latter is the case where X fires a bullet at Y, but the bullet misses
Y. Eventually, Y dies due to old age, here the chain of causation ceases to exist after
the bullet missed Y and therefore X cannot be held liable for the death of Y.
Therefore, in applying the doctrine of causation, first a chain of causation has to be
established and then the continuity of the chain is ensured.

II. IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF CAUSATION

Causa Sine Qua Non

According to the theory of causal determinism, every future event is caused due to the
existence of the requisite conditions in the status quo. Therefore, any consequence is a
result of several specific causes. However, it is impractical to explore each and every
cause behind a consequence. Therefore, only the causa sine qua non of each result is
considered. According to the ‘but for’ test used in UK, for a cause to qualify as causa
sine qua non, the final consequence should not be possible but for the cause.
However, it also required that the cause be a substantial cause to prevent over-
inclusiveness. For example, X dies in a road accident in Edinburg. According to the
‘but for’ test the car hitting X is a causa sine qua non but so is his employer
transferring X from London to Edinburgh. However, the latter is not a substantial
cause while the former is. Without the existence of a causa sine qua non, no chain of
causation will come into existence in the first place.

Novus Actus Interveniens

                                                                                                               
5
AIR 1949 Ori 48
The Latin term, Novus Actus Interveniens, refers to an intervening act, which breaks
the chain of causation. The act could be a natural act, an act of the third party or an act
of the victim. However, not every intervening act qualifies as novus actus
interveniens. The intervening act must be such that it is not foreseeable or intended
but in some cases, when the intervening act is a ‘free deliberate and informed act’6 of
another agent, the original causation breaks despite the consequence being an
intended consequence. For example, X hits Y with a wooden stick and leaves him
unconscious in the forest. Now, if a wild animal kills Y, X will be liable for it being a
foreseeable consequence. However, if another person, Z, comes along and kills Y, the
chain of causation will break and X will no longer be liable for Y’s death even if it
was foreseeable that Z might kill Y. Novus Actus Interveniens therefore breaks the
chain of causation rendering the accused free from liability of the consequence.

III. CAUSATION IN INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW

Unlike its counterpart in UK or USA, the Indian criminal law does not have a separate
doctrine of causation. The provision for causation has been integrated into different
sections of the IPC. According to Explanation 2 of section 299, IPC “Where death is
caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to
have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment
the death might have been prevented.” This provision is equivalent to the common
law rule that negligence on the part of doctors (as long as it does not qualify as gross
negligence) or lack of medical infrastructure does not break the chain of causation.
Much like this section, many section in the IPC ingrain the common law doctrine of
causation. However, as a consequence of not have a separate doctrine of causation,
different provisions in IPC have different approaches to causation i.e. the causation
required for conviction under Section 304A of IPC is different for that required for
conviction under Section 302.

The courts have clearly distinguished between these approaches unique to each
provision. In Ranganathan S/o Kaliyappan Manager, KPR Processing Company,
Erode and others v State of Tamil Nadu7, the Madras high court refused to apply the
theory of causation propounded by the Supreme Court for rash and negligent act for a
case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Since almost every consequence based provision listed in the IPC has its own
approach, analyzing each of them is beyond the scope of this paper. This paper
therefore, only explores the theories of causation to that of rash and negligent act
under Section 304A and causation of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

Section 304A

Causation under Section 304A for rash and negligent act has a slightly different
approach than the general theory of causation. For conviction under Section 304A, in

                                                                                                               
6
Jeremty Horder & Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law 104 (7th ed. 2013)
7
2014 Indlaw MAD 739
addition to the act being causa sine qua non, it also has to be causa causans.8 Black’s
Dictionary, 5th Ed. defines causa causans as "the immediate cause; the last link in the
chain of causation." Therefore, the consequence has to be an immediate result of the
rash or negligent act.

In Sushil Ansal v State Through CBI9 , where the negligent handling of a DVB
transformer lead to a fire in a cinema hall which in turn lead to the death of 59 people
while injuring scores of others. The Supreme Court following the ratio laid down in
Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap10 held that despite the gross negligence in maintenance
of the DVB transformers, it was not the causa causans and does not attract conviction
under Section 304A. In this case, the owner of cinema hall had allowed only one exit
as opposed of the statutorily requirement that all the exits be open. Therefore, while
the Supreme Court awarded the conviction under Section 304A to the owners of the
cinema hall for gross negligence, the court refused to convict the DVB employee
responsible for the shabby state of affairs under the same. Therefore, the law of the
land remains that for conviction under Section 304A, the act must not only be the
causa sine qua non but also the causa causans.

Section 302

Courts generally apply a strict rule of causation to merit conviction under Section
302. The consequence must be a direct result of the initial act for conviction under
this section and any form of unintended link breaks the chain of causation. In Re:
Maragatham and Another11, the Madras High Court explored causation required to
attract conviction under Section 302. In this case, a family was attempting to commit
suicide with a two-year old infant by jumping into the well. However, before they
could throw the infant into the well, she slipped out of the mother’s hand and fell into
the well. The parents jumped too however, they were rescued. Unfortunately, the
infant died. Therefore, despite having the requisite mens rea, to kill the infant, and the
existence of a consequence, the death of the infant, the High Court held that the chain
of causation was disrupted and refused conviction under Section 302. Instead they
were convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307.

In case of the offence of murder, a person is liable for the direct consequences of his
actions in terms of causal relationship and not in terms time and space. For the
purpose of determining causation, as long as a causal relationship exists, the time
passed between the act and the consequence is irrelevant. In Subhash v State12, where
the accused threw acid on the victim leading to her demise, the court held that the fact
that the victim died 20 days after the attack as a result of septicemia is irrelevant. The
septicemia was due to infection of the injury caused by the acid burns and therefore, a
direct cause of the accused’s actions. The Delhi High court convicted the accused
under Section 302 for murder. Even in cases where there is a substantial delay
between the death and the act, the accused may still be held liable. For example, X

                                                                                                               
8
Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Bangawalla v State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616; Ambalal D.
Bhatt v The State of Gujarat 1972 Indlaw SC 618; B.P.Ram and Another v State OF M.P. 1989 Indlaw
MP 4
9
2014 Indlaw SC 151
10
(1902) 4 Bom LR 679
11
AIR 1961 MAD 498
12
2012 IndLaw DEL 3634
poisons Y with a special poison, which causes Y’s organ system to shut down slowly
over time. Y dies after a period of six months. X is still liable for Y’s death.

However, the chain of causation in case of murder is strictly scrutinized and the
benefit of doubt is given to the accused. In M.B. Suresh v State of Karnataka13, the
accused fired indiscriminately at the deceased causing nine injuries. The doctor stated
the cause of death to be shock. The Supreme Court held the reason behind the shock
was unknown and cannot be attributed to the injuries caused by the accused. The
Supreme Court hence refused to convict the accused for murder. Instead, he was
convicted under Section 307 for attempt to murder.

IV. AMBIGUITY REGARDING CAUSATION IN INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW

In India, causation is classified differently for different consequence based crimes.

For crimes like murder, causation is interpreted strictly and even the slightest doubt
works in favour of the accused. In M.B. Suresh Case, the accused despite firing
indiscriminately at the deceased causing as many as nine injuries was not convicted
for murder due to the ambiguous statement by the medical expert and the Supreme
Court’s interpreting the ambiguity in favour of the accused. Under the IPC, if the
death is due to an injury not intended by the accused, even if the accused posses
intention to kill, the death is treated as culpable homicide and not murder. Causation,
under the Indian criminal law, is entirely based upon the determination of the courts.
Most of these determinations are done on a case-to-case basis loosely based on
fundamental principles. It therefore often results into arbitrary determination of the
chain of causation. The Common Law doctrine of causation however follows the
maxim ‘intended consequences are never too remote’14. Therefore, if the mens reas of
the accused can be sufficiently established, minor chinks in the chain of causation are
not considered significant.15 This allows conviction in cases where the manner is not
what was intended by the accused but finally results into the same consequence.

While not having a separate doctrine of causation, as in the Common Law, allows the
IPC to maintain the flexibility of applying varying standards of causation to varying
degree of crimes, in some cases, it also ends up violating the basic principles of
reasonable expectations. In Subhash Case, the accused was held not liable for the acid
burns inflicted on the father of the victim while pouring water on his daughter. The
strict interpretation of causation followed under the Section thus violates the principle
of reasonable expectations. Causation under IPC thus remains an unknown and
unpredictable territory. More often than not, causation is clubbed together with mens
rea or actus reus and the Courts refuse to treat it as a separate elements of crime.

Therefore, there exists an urgent need to resolve the ambiguous nature of the principle
of causation in India. While determining causation, due weightage must be given to
the existing circumstance, the mens rea of the accused and the mental state of the

                                                                                                               
13
(2014) 4 SCC 31
14
C.M.V. Clarkson, H.M. Keating & S.R. Cunningham, Clarkson and Keating Criminal Law: Text and
Material 447 (6th ed. 2007) 447
15
See R v Smith [1959] Q.B. 35
victim. The development of strict guidelines is a necessity to ensure a uniform
application of the principle of causation.

V. CONCLUSION

This paper highlights the broad scope of causation and the overlap with mens rea and
actus reus. It attempts to bring forward causation as a separate requirement for
criminal liability exploring the two most important elements of this chain of causation
namely causa sine qua non and novus actus interveniens. Finally, the paper analyses
causation under Indian Penal Code highlighting its unique nature as incorporating
under different section instead of existing as a separate principle.

Under the doctrine of causation, every consequence-based crime is depicted as linked

from the mens rea to the actus reus. As long as this link remains unbroken, the act of
the accused is assumed to have caused the consequence. Further, the actus must be a
substantial cause and also a causa sine qua non for the consequence to qualify.

However, while the IPC draws the essentials from the doctrine of causation, every
section has its own unique approach to causation in crime. Cause of this unique
approach and the subsequent lack of a uniform doctrine, there is a lot of ambiguity
about the standards and degree of causation under different crimes. Such ambiguity,
especially in criminal law can lead to absurd results and therefore, needs to be
tackled.