Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Summary: Virsa Singh V. The State of Punjab: Sparsh Sharma

    Uploaded by

    Kumari Rimjhim
    134 views3 pages
    This case summary discusses the Supreme Court of India case Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court laid down four ingredients for Section 300, clause 3rdly of the Indian Penal Code regarding culpable homicide. First, there must be bodily injury. Second, the nature of the injury must be proved. Third, the injury must have been intentionally inflicted on that part of the body. Fourth, death must have been caused in the ordinary course of nature. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments that the prosecution must also prove intent for the second clause of Section 300, and that a single blow cannot prove intent. The Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ea9d363e-3ae5-480a-9bea-e2504ec8874d

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case summary discusses the Supreme Court of India case Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court laid down four ingredients for Section 300, clause 3rdly of the Indian Penal Code regarding culpable homicide. First, there must be bodily injury. Second, the nature of the injury must be proved. Third, the injury must have been intentionally inflicted on that part of the body. Fourth, death must have been caused in the ordinary course of nature. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments that the prosecution must also prove intent for the second clause of Section 300, and that a single blow cannot prove intent. The Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    134 views3 pages

    Case Summary: Virsa Singh V. The State of Punjab: Sparsh Sharma

    Uploaded by

    Kumari Rimjhim
    This case summary discusses the Supreme Court of India case Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court laid down four ingredients for Section 300, clause 3rdly of the Indian Penal Code regarding culpable homicide. First, there must be bodily injury. Second, the nature of the injury must be proved. Third, the injury must have been intentionally inflicted on that part of the body. Fourth, death must have been caused in the ordinary course of nature. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments that the prosecution must also prove intent for the second clause of Section 300, and that a single blow cannot prove intent. The Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    CASE SUMMARY: VIRSA SINGH v.

    THE STATE OF PUNJAB1


    Sparsh Sharma*

    CITATION: ​AIR 1958 SC 465


    COURT: ​Criminal Appeal no. 90 of 1957 before Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India
    HON’BLE JUDGES/CORAM​: P.B. Gajendragadkar, Syed Jaffer Imam and Vivian Bose, J.
    PARTIES INVOLVED: ​Virsa Singh (Appellant) and State of Punjab (Respondent)
    DATE OF DECISION​: 11.03.1958
    TOPIC: ​Section 300. 3rdly of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC)

    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.

    II. MATERIAL FACTS

    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.

    III. ISSUE INVOLVED

    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

    Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com


    Section 300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
    death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

    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

    The Appeal of the accused is therefore dismissed

    VII. EVALUATION

    Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com


    There was no dissenting opinion and the judgement was written by Vivian Bose, J. for the Coram of judges. In a
    nutshell, it would be conclusive to say that, the intention has to be inferred from the nature of the injury, for murder
    the injury must be serious enough to cause death of an individual and the seriousness of the injury is important.

    Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

    You might also like