Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Cause and Effect Relationship in Criminal Liability

Criminal liability in India is based on a set of fundamental principles and legal concepts that define when a person can be held accountable for committing a criminal offense. These principles are rooted in Indian law and legal traditions. These principles are designed to establish clear standards for when and how someone should be held responsible for a crime, ensuring that liability is both fair and appropriate for the actions committed. In this article we shall discuss principle of causation of crime or cause and effect relationship in criminal liability.

Principle of Causation (Cause and Effect Relationship):

The cause and effect relationship plays a crucial role in establishing criminal liability, as it links the defendant’s actions (actus reus) to the harm or result (effect) that occurs. For an individual to be criminally liable, their conduct must be shown to have caused a particular consequence or harm. The legal system requires that the defendant’s actions directly or indirectly result in the harm, and this connection between cause and effect is essential in proving criminal responsibility.

Kinds of Causation in Criminal Law

• Direct Causation: A person intentionally shoots another person. The act of shooting directly causes the death of the victim. The defendant is responsible for the murder, as both factual and proximate causation are established.
• Indirect Causation: A person drives recklessly, runs a red light, and causes a crash that kills a pedestrian. The defendant’s reckless driving is the factual cause of the victim’s death. The result (death of the pedestrian) was also a foreseeable consequence of reckless driving, so proximate causation is likely satisfied.
• Intervening or Break in Causation: Sometimes, there is an intervening act (also known as novus actus interveniens) that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s actions and the harm that occurs. For example, if the defendant shoots the victim, but the victim survives the initial injury and later dies from a completely unrelated event (e.g., a natural disaster), the defendant’s actions may not be the proximate cause of the death. Intervening acts that are foreseeable (e.g., a victim’s medical treatment complicating their injuries) might still maintain the link between the defendant’s conduct and the harm.
• Contributory Acts (Multiple Causes): In some cases, more than one person’s actions contribute to the result. For example, a person throws a punch at another, causing them to fall and hit their head on the ground. A second person immediately steps in, causing further injury. Both people’s actions contributed to the victim’s death. Joint causation might be applicable, where both individuals are seen as having caused the harm.

To establish criminal liability, it must be proven that the accused’s actions were the actual and proximate cause of the criminal offense. This principle ensures a causal link between the accused’s conduct and the harm caused. Proving causation has two parts

1. Factual Causation, and
2. Proximate Causation

Factual Causation:

Factual causation, also known as the But-For Test, is an essential concept in criminal law that helps determine whether a defendant’s actions were a cause of the resulting harm or criminal outcome. It is the first part of the broader principle of causation, which is crucial to establishing criminal liability. To establish factual causation, the But-For Test is used to answer the key question: Would the harm have occurred but for the defendant’s actions?

How the But-For Test Works

To apply the But-For Test, the following steps are typically involved:

• Identify the Harm: First, identify the harm or result that occurred (e.g., the death of a person, injury to a victim, destruction of property, etc.).
• Examine the Defendant’s Actions: Analyze the defendant’s conduct to see whether it contributed to the harm.
• Ask the “But-For” Question: Consider whether the harm would have happened but for the defendant’s actions. In other words, would the harm still have occurred if the defendant had not acted the way they did?

For example, if the defendant shoots the victim, would the victim still have died but for the defendant’s actions? If not, then the defendant’s actions can be said to have caused the victim’s death. Thus, factual causation is established, and the defendant’s actions are a cause of the result.

Factual causation is crucial because it helps establish the link between the defendant’s actions and the harm that occurred. However, it is just the first step in determining causation. After factual causation is established, legal causation (proximate causation) must also be examined to determine if the defendant’s actions were the legal cause of the harm in the context of the law.

Limitations of the But-For Test

While the But-For Test is a useful tool for determining factual causation, it has some limitations in more complex cases where there may be multiple causes of the harm. The test can sometimes be overly simplistic when there are intervening factors or multiple concurrent causes.

• If there are multiple factors that contributed to the harm, it can be challenging to apply the But-For Test. For instance, if the victim’s death was caused by both the defendant’s actions and another person’s actions, it may be difficult to determine if the harm would have occurred without the defendant’s conduct.
• In some cases, an intervening cause (also known as a novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation. For example, if a defendant injures a victim but the victim’s death is later caused by a medical professional’s error, the defendant’s actions may no longer be considered the proximate cause of death, even though they were a factual cause under the But-For Test.
• If a person has a pre-existing medical condition that makes them more vulnerable to harm, the But-For Test may still show causation, but it may be harder to determine if the defendant’s actions were the legal cause. For instance, if a defendant’s action triggers a heart attack in a person with a weak heart, the But-For Test might suggest the defendant caused the heart attack, but proximate causation might still need to be evaluated.

The But-For Test is a fundamental tool in establishing factual causation in criminal law. It helps determine whether the defendant’s actions were a necessary cause of the harm or result. By asking if the harm would have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct, the test establishes a direct link between the defendant’s actions and the outcome. However, while it is essential for determining factual causation, it must often be followed by an analysis of proximate causation to fully establish criminal liability.

Proximate Causation (Legal Causation):

Proximate causation, also referred to as legal causation, is a principle in criminal law that helps determine whether the defendant’s actions are sufficiently connected to the harm or result to justify holding them legally responsible for the crime. While factual causation (often determined by the But-For Test) shows that the defendant’s conduct was a necessary condition for the harm, proximate causation ensures that the harm was a legally foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.

In other words, proximate causation involves determining whether the defendant’s actions were closely enough related to the harm to make it fair and just to hold them criminally liable, even if there were intervening factors or additional events that contributed to the harm.

Example 1 (Foreseeability):

Defendant A shoots Victim B in the leg, and while Victim B is hospitalized, a medical professional negligently administers the wrong treatment, causing Victim B to die. It is foreseeable that Victim B’s leg injury might lead to complications or require medical attention. Even though the death was caused by the medical professional’s error, the original injury by Defendant A could still be considered the proximate cause of the death, since the result was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant A’s actions.

Example 2 (intervening Clause):

Defendant X punches Victim Y in the face, causing Victim Y to fall. After the fall, Victim Y is struck by a car driven by another person, and Victim Y dies. The key question is whether it was foreseeable that Victim Y would be hit by a car after falling. If the intervening event (the car accident) is seen as an unforeseeable or independent event that breaks the chain of causation, Defendant X might not be held criminally responsible for the death. However, if it was foreseeable that the fall could lead to further harm (such as injury from an accident), proximate causation might still be established.

Key Points of Proximate Causation (Legal Causation)

• Foreseeability: Proximate causation often depends on whether the defendant could have reasonably foreseen the harm that occurred as a result of their actions. If the harm was too distant or unforeseeable, the defendant might not be held criminally liable, even if their actions were a factual cause of the harm.
• Directness of the Causal Link: Proximate causation requires that the defendant’s actions be sufficiently linked to the harm. There must be a clear and direct causal connection between the act and the harm, without significant intervening causes.
• Intervening Causes: An intervening cause (also known as a novus actus interveniens) is an event that occurs after the defendant’s act and contributes to the harm or result. If an intervening cause is independent of the defendant’s actions and is not foreseeable, it can break the chain of causation, relieving the defendant of criminal liability. However, if the intervening cause is foreseeable and related to the defendant’s actions, proximate causation may still be found.
• Superseding Causes: A superseding cause is an intervening cause that is so extraordinary or unforeseeable that it overrides the defendant’s actions, thus breaking the chain of causation. If a superseding cause is identified, it may relieve the defendant of liability.

To determine proximate causation, courts typically evaluate whether the harm was a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s actions. In other words, would the harm have occurred even if the defendant had not acted? If the harm is deemed to be too remote or unforeseeable, proximate causation may not be established, even if factual causation is present.

Factors That Impact Proximate Causation

• Intervening Acts of Others: If another person’s actions intervene and contribute to the harm, courts will look at whether those actions were foreseeable. For example, if a defendant attacks someone, and that person later dies from a completely unrelated event (e.g., a lightning strike), proximate causation may not apply because the lightning strike would be seen as a superseding cause.
• Intervening Medical Treatment: In cases where medical treatment contributes to a victim’s death, courts will evaluate whether the medical treatment was a normal and reasonable response to the defendant’s actions. If the treatment was negligent or grossly inappropriate, it may not break the chain of causation. However, if the treatment was an extraordinary departure from standard medical practices, it could be considered a superseding cause.
• Acts of God or Natural Events: Natural events (such as earthquakes, floods, or lightning) that occur after the defendant’s actions might be considered intervening causes. If such an event is unforeseeable and breaks the causal link, it could relieve the defendant of liability.
• Victim’s Own Actions: Sometimes, the victim’s own actions can break the chain of causation. For instance, if a defendant injures a victim, but the victim refuses medical treatment or engages in reckless behaviour that leads to further harm, the victim’s actions might be considered an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation.

Proximate causation (or legal causation) is essential for determining whether the defendant should be held criminally liable for the harm that occurred. While factual causation shows that the defendant’s actions contributed to the result, proximate causation examines whether it is fair and just to hold the defendant liable, based on the foreseeability and directness of the link between their actions and the harm.

In many cases, intervening causes or unforeseeable events may break the chain of causation, preventing the defendant from being held criminally responsible. Courts use proximate causation to ensure that criminal liability is only imposed in cases where it is morally and legally appropriate, taking into account the relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting harm.

Conclusion:

To establish criminal liability, it must be proven that the accused’s actions were the actual and proximate cause of the criminal offense. This principle ensures a causal link between the accused’s conduct and the harm caused.

The cause and effect relationship is essential for criminal liability because it links the defendant’s conduct to the harm or result that occurs. Both factual causation (the “but for” test) and proximate causation (whether the result was a foreseeable consequence) must be established for a defendant to be found criminally liable for offenses that cause harm. This ensures that individuals are only held responsible for results that are directly linked to their conduct in a reasonable and foreseeable way, reflecting principles of fairness and justice.

For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here