Case Summary: Virsa Singh V. The State of Punjab: Sparsh Sharma
Case Summary: Virsa Singh V. The State of Punjab: Sparsh Sharma
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial Court convicted one Virsa Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) for the offence of murder u/s 302
of IPC and his conviction as well as sentence was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Hence the matter arose before the present court via grant of Special appeal.
A spear was thrusted into the stomach of one Khem Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘victim’) by the accused
which resulted in three coils of intestine bursting out. The medical report described the wound as deep enough
resulting in flowing out of digested food from the cuts and the doctor reported that the injury was sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.
However the victim died on the subsequent day at 5 p.m whereas the incident occurred at 8 p.m on the previous
night of 13.07.1955.
The matter before this court is limited over the question of what offence is made out as having been committed by
the petitioner
IV. ARGUMENTS
Counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) first contended that the intention associated with
the first part of the clause 3rdly, “If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person” would not
be enough to fall within this clause. Additional requirement of intention for the second part, i.e, “and the bodily
injury intended to be inf licted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”, is also necessary.
Secondly, the defendant quoted from the case of R v. Steane2 where the Chief justice said “where a particular intent
must be laid and charged, that particular intent must be proved” and tried to extend the role of intent in the act in
question. The defendant quoted another para from the same case where it was mentioned that in case of doubt as to
the question of intent, the accused should be acquitted and placed burden on the prosecution to establish the intent
up to the hilt.
Third, Defendant referred to Emperor v. Sardarkhan Jaridkhan3, which said that where death is caused by one
single blow it is difficult to find out what really was intended by the accused.
1
AIR 1958 SC 465, MANU/SC/0041/1958
*LLB (Hons.) student at Rajiv gandhi School Of Intellectual property Law, IIT Kharagpur
2
[1947] 1 KB 997
3
1916(18)BomLR793, MANU/MH/0086/1916
3rdly —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inf licted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or...
V. JUDGEMENT
The court laid down the ingredients for this clause which became “locus classicus” over time and have helped the
courts to solve similar cases in future. They can be classified into four broad categories.
First, bodily injury should be present and this is a purely objective inquiry. This can be clearly inferred from the
facts of the case.
Second, the nature of injury has to be proved, i.e, which part of the body the injury was inflicted, whether it is a vital
organ or it was on leg or arms for that matter; how deep the injury was inflicted and other fact based inquiry and
post mortem reports.
Third, it is not accidental or unintentional, i.e, the injury inflicted on the person of an individual has to be intended
to be on that part of the body and not otherwise. So let's say an individual wanted to grievously hurt another
individual on his thigh or hand for that matter. But unfortunately that individual reacted in a manner that the blow
occured on a vital organ like head or heart for that matter. Then in that case the accused cannot be held guilty under
this section because he did not intend to cause such bodily injury to that individual. Therefore this is a subjective
inquiry and circumstances justify the action of a person as to the part of the body it was intended to be
attacked.Whether intention is there or not in this situation is a question of fact and not the law.
Further, intention has to be understood by considering whether the individual wanted to hit at a vital organ with
sufficient force as to result in such bodily injury causing death in ordinary circumstances.
Note that Contention 2 of the defendant also does not stand the test of the court because if the argument of intention
is stretched further to attribute even the falling out of intestines or preempting the number of cuts in the walls of
stomach, it would be impossible to convict any normal human unless the accused is an expert in human anatomy.
Also the court in this case referred to another para of the same judgement cited by the defendant in which the court
held that the burden was on the defendant to explain why the act in question was done resulting in death of the
victim with proper evidence if the prosecution proves that such act had been done. The same thing has happened in
this case too.
Contention 3, the court said that that it does not satisfy the demands of this section as seriousness of the injury
cannot be linked with the intent. Lets say for instance an individual is given one deep stab at a vital organ causing
death against 10 non lethal blows on non vital organs not amounting to death. In such a scenario the argument
advanced by the defendant falls short.
The most important thing before the court is whether the accused intended to inflict that injury or not and it will be
presumed by the court that the intention existed if other objective factors are established unless proved otherwise by
the defendant.
Fourth, death is caused in ordinary course of nature is an objective inquiry as it is to be inferred from the facts
established and has to do nothing with the element of intention.
Note here that the Contention 1 forwarded by the defendant is unsatisfactory. There an attempt was made to extend
the ambit of intention to the second clause of 300 3rdly also which is an objective inquiry. The hon’ble judge made
it clear that if supposedly intention was assumed even for this objective inquiry, it would render S. 300 3rdly
meaningless because both 1stly and 3rdly would mean the same. Therefore S. 300 1stly and 3rdly respectively are
standalone parts under the section. S.300 1stly makes it clear that nothing else was intended but death of the person
and this should not be mixed with 3rdly. Judge even jokingly said that this was one of the favourite defenses used in
such cases.
VI. HELD
VII. EVALUATION