The Landmark Judgment Virsa Singh vs.

State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

Facts: The appellant was allegedly guilty of the murder of one Khem Singh. There was only one injury on his
person, which was a result of a spear thrust. The doctor said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death.
Medical Report: The injury was a punctured wound 2- x transverse in direction on the left side of the
abdominal wall in the lower part of the iliac region just above the inguinal canal. Three coils of intestine were
also coming out.
The appellant was convicted by the first court under section 302 IPC and his conviction was upheld by the High
Court. He was granted special leave to the Supreme Court on the following:
Issue: On the finding of High Court what offence is made out as having been committed by the petitioner
Arguments advanced: It was argued with much circumlocution that the facts set out above do not disclose an
offence of murder because the prosecution has not proved that there was an intention to inflict a bodily injury
that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Reasoning and decision: The court said that actual reading of this section infers that it is not enough to prove
that the injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature but it must be in
addition shown that the injury found to be present was the same injury that was intended to be inflicted.
Whether it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is a matter of inference or deduction
from the proved facts about the nature of the injury and has nothing to do with the question of intention.
The court gave a four-point test which prosecution must observe and prove in order tobring the case under this
section:
i) First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
ii) Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
iii) Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say,
that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three
elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and,
iv) Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out
above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective
and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution
throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300, thirdly.
This four point test is applied in many such subsequent cases . It is mainly after this judgment that clear
guidelines were provided for the application of this section. These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become
locus classicus. The test laid down by Virsa Singh's case for the applicability of clause "Thirdly" is now
ingrained in our legal system and has become part of the rule of law. Under clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC,
culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied: i.e. (a) that the act which causes
death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b)
that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be
proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature,
was sufficient to cause death, viz. that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be
inflicted.
Also the court observed that accused can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury
was accidental or otherwise unintentional. A case in which such a defence was uphleld and accused was
exonerated of the charge of murder wasKhuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004). The facts were that
the villagers from different villages were assembled in connection of the flag ceremony of a temple. The stick of
Khuman Singh, appellant struck the one who was beating the drum. An altercation took place and parties were
pacified by intervention of the deceased. After ceremony was over, the complainant party was chased by the
appellants. The deceased was overpowered and was assaulted with lathi blows and stones. Some accused also
trampled on his body and he died on the spot. According to the medical report none of the injuries was sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death had actually resulted due injury to the liver caused by
fracture of rib bone, which punctured the liver.
Decision: The court observed that what happened was not premeditated and appellants were not prepared for the
incident. The injuries were inflicted by lathies and stones. Medical report showed that it was the ribs that had
entered the liver and if liver was not damaged death would not have resulted. This injury was not one which was
intended by the court and it was at best accidental and therefore s. 300 (3) is not attracted.