Question

F invited C to have a fix of his heroin. Each filled his own syringe and injected each other several times one night. Next morning F died on the question of causation:

• A. C must be convicted of manslaughter
• B. must not be convicted of manslaughter
• C. C can be convicted for the possession of heroin only
• D. C is neither guilty of possessing heroin nor the death of F

Hint:

In drug-related death cases, the key question on causation is: Who performed the final act of administration? If the victim self-injects, the supplier is usually not guilty of homicide. If the accused injects the victim, they have committed the actus reus of homicide.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question deals with the complex legal issue of causation in criminal law, specifically in the context of drug administration leading to death. The key is to determine if C's actions constitute a legally culpable act that caused F's death. The offence in question would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder (manslaughter in common law parlance).
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
In many common law jurisdictions (like the UK, whose precedents are influential in India), the law distinguishes between supplying drugs and administering them. If an adult of sound mind voluntarily and freely self-administers a drug, the supplier is generally not held liable for manslaughter if the person dies (\textit{R v Kennedy (No 2)}). The free and voluntary act of the victim is said to break the chain of causation.
However, the facts here are critically different. It states they "injected each other". This means C performed the physical act of injecting F with heroin. This act is a direct and substantial cause of F's death. It is no longer a case of F's voluntary act breaking the chain of causation; C's act is the direct \textit{actus reus}.
For culpable homicide (manslaughter), the prosecution would need to prove:
1. Actus Reus: C's act of injecting F with heroin, which is an unlawful and dangerous act. 2. Causation: This act was a significant cause of F's death. 3. Mens Rea: The intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm is not required for this level of offence. What is required is the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death (Section 299 IPC). Injecting someone with heroin is an inherently dangerous act, and the knowledge of its potential to cause death can be readily inferred.
Therefore, by injecting F, C committed an unlawful and dangerous act that caused F's death, fulfilling the requirements for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Since C directly administered the fatal dose by injecting F, C's act is a direct cause of F's death. This constitutes an unlawful act that led to the death, making C liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (manslaughter). Therefore, option (A) is the correct answer.