Laxman vs State Of M.

P on 18 September, 2006
(b) of Section 299 IPC and Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC is one of the degree of
probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is
the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the
gravest, medium of the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC
conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words
"bodily injury.....sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that
death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary
course of nature.
Arun Nivalaji More vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 August, 2006
The mere fact that a dangerous or deadly weapon was not used or the injuries
were not caused on vital part of the body may not necessarily take out the offence from
the clutches of clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. Death may take place on account of
large number of blows given by a blunt weapon like lathi on hands and legs causing
fractures. Though the injuries may not be on a vital part of the body as the said term is
generally understood, but if the medical evidence shows that they were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence would fall in clause Thirdly of
Section 300 IPC.
Siri Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2009
In Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, instead of the words 'likely to cause death' occurring in
the corresponding Clause
(b) of Section 299 IPC, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been
used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a
bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is
fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference
between Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC and Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC is one of the
degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more
broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable
homicide is of the gravest, medium of the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in Clause (b)
of Section 299 IPC conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere
possibility. The words "bodily injury.....sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to
the ordinary course of nature.

Danaram And Two Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 February, 1977

Requirement of Clause (3) of Section 300, I.P.C., is that the injuries inflicted upon the
person of the deceased must be intentional as contra-distinguished from accidental. It is
not necessary that the offender should intend to cause death. So long as the death ensues
from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature, the provisions of Section 300(3) I.P.C. are attracted. What is required to
be proved is that firstly it should be established that a bodily injury is present. Secondly
the nature of injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. It must be
proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular 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 inquiry proceeds further and fourthly it must
be proved that the injury of the type which is described made up of all the three elements
set out above were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This fart of
the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of
the offender.

Jai Prakash vs State (Delhi Administration) on 5 February, 1991

This argument is often raised for consideration by this Court and more often reliance is
placed on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab,[1958] SCR 1495. We would have gone into the
question in detail but in Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana [1981] 3 SCC 616, Sen. J. after
examining all the previous decisions on the subject, observed that in order to bring the
case within Para 3
of Section 300, I.P.C., 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. This view was further affirmed in a decision rendered in
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, [1981 4 SCC 484.

Mohinder Sharma vs State on 21 February, 2013

In the present case, the deceased walking at night was attacked and robbed of his mobile
phone and other belongings. Under Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC it is not necessary that
the accused should have the knowledge that the injury caused by him would result in
death. The knowledge contemplated under Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC is objective.
The said clause mandates that if an accused causes the intended injury which itself is
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, the accused would be guilty of
murder. The deceased was returning from duty on the fateful night and was unarmed. He
was attacked with a knife. Multiple injuries were inflicted on the on different parts of the
body of the deceased. The appellant has been, therefore, rightly been convicted under
Section 302 IPC.

Ghasi Ram vs State on 1 July, 1952

Killing may be murder although it is not premeditated. Generally speaking the
proposition "Murder" is killing with the intention of killing or inflicting a fatal injury will
cover Clauses (1), (2) & (3) of Section 300, Penal Code. Cases under Clause (4) of
Section 300, I.P.C. are very rare and a perusal of illustration (d) to Section 300, I.P.C. will
amply bear me out. What the Sessions Judge should do, therefore is to look to Section
300, Penal Code. If the act falls under any one of the four clauses, it is murder, provided
of course that no exception applies. Clause (3) to Section 300, I.P.C. refers to a bodily
injury sufficient to cause death and Section 299, I.P.C. refers to the bodily injury likely to
cause death. The distinction between the two is one of degree. "Likely to cause death"
connotes that there is less probability of death but "Sufficient to cause death" means that
the probability of death is greater.

Since intention is always state of mind, it can be proved only by its external
manifestations. when injuries are inflicted on vital parts of the body with sharp edged
instruments then the intention to kill can be attributed to the offender.
case- Chahat Khan v state of haryana AIR1972SC 2574
in case of Badampalli venkateswarlu v state of andhara pradesh 1975 SCC 492
supreme court held that when an accused hit the deceased on a vital part of the body, the
chest , with the blade of a sword, two feet in length with such force as to impair the liver
and the aorta, it was held the offence was plainly one of murder.

the first part is subjective to the offender :'If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person '. one this is established, the sufficiency of the injury is purely
an objective fact. It is a matter of inference or deduction from the proven facts about the
nature of injury and has nothing to do with intention. the term sufficiency used in this
clause is the high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature and if such
sufficiency exists and death is caused and the injury causing it is intentional, the case falls
under clause (3) of section 300 of Ipc {state of andhra pradesh v rayaavarapu punnyya
1976 4 SCC 382}. the injury caused should be the cause of the death. whether a particular
injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, is obviously a
question of fact.
the accused who intentionally caused the injury, may not be aware that injury was
sufficient to cause death or likely to cause death. but, if his intention to cause injury was
established and the injury caused is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature, then the accused is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.{veera

muthu v state of madras 1971 3 SCC 427}