08/11/2017 VIRSA SINGH V.

STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1958 SC 465: 1958 SCR 1495 – LAW PEGASUS

LAW PEGASUS
Where Law and Business Meet

HOME ABOUT US CASE BRIEFS BLOGS GALLERY LINKS PUBLICATIONS E-LIBRARY

VIRSA SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1958 SC 465: 19

 Posted on June 6, 2017 by Kartik Tiwari

FACTS:
Search...
The accused (Virsa Singh) thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased (Khem Singh).  There was only
one injury on Khem Singh and it was caused as the result of a spear thrust. The doctor who conducted the
post –mortem of the body of Khem Singh said that it was “a punctured wound 2” x ½”  transverse in Subscrib
direction on the left side of the abdominal wall in the lower part of the iliac region just above the inguinal
canal”.  He also added that “ three coils of the intestine were coming out of the wound”. He further said that
Your ema
the injury caused by the accused to the deceased was sufficient enough on ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
SUBSCRIB
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

The accused was tried with five others under sec. 302/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. He
was also charged individually under sec. 302.
Categor

The session judge convicted the accused under sec. 302 of the Indian penal Code. It said that the case fell Select Cat
under sec. 300 thirdly of the penal code. And others were acquitted of the murder charge but were

convicted under sec. 326, 324 and 323 of the penal code.

http://lawpegasus.com/virsa-singh-v-state-of-punjab-air-1958-sc-465-1958-scr-1495/ 1/4
08/11/2017 VIRSA SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1958 SC 465: 1958 SCR 1495 – LAW PEGASUS

The High Court of Punjab upheld the conviction and sentence of accused of life imprisonment under sec.
Recent P
302 of the Indian Penal Code and  acquitted others .

The accused has been granted special leave by the Supreme court.  BARS AND
VERDICT……
ISSUE: What offence has been committed by the accused?
 GOODS AN
RULES:  In the present case the district court as well as the High court has dealt with the sections relating CONSTITUT
to homicide as the case involves death of a person. The case deals with the section 302 ( Punishment for
murder) ; section 300 (Murder); section 299 (Culpable Homicide) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The case  SEXUAL HA
has dealt section 300 thirdly in depth and had discussed the clause “sufficient in ordinary course of nature WORKPLAC
to cause death” and intention to inflict to such injury in detail.
 VIRSA SING
APPLICATION: 465: 1958 S

It was argued with much circumlocution that the facts does not disclose an offence of murder because it  PALANI GO
was not proved that there was an intention to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient in ordinary course of (Mad)
nature to cause death.  To this argument, it was said that the intention that the section requires must be
related, not to to the bodily injury inflicted, but also to the clause, “and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”  Section 300 thirdly says that if it is
Recent C
done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted
is sufficient in ordinary course of nature death. The court rejected this argument and held that if there is an
intention to inflict  an injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, then the intention is to kill and in that event, the clause ‘thirdly’ would be unnecessary because the
act would fall under the first part of the section namely-  if the act by which the death is caused is done
with the intention of causing death.  The court said that the two clauses are disjunctive and separate. The
fact is subjective and the other-“if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury  to any person -is
objective. In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the
inquiry necessarily proceeds  on broad lines for example, whether there was an intention to strike at a vital
or a dangerous spot, and whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been
inflicted.

In short, the following facts must be proved before bringing any case under section 300 “thirdly” ;

First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;

Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
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 inquiry proceeds further and,
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 inquiry is purely
objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.

Once these four elements are established the offence is murder under section section 300 thirdly.

The next issue which was discussed was that “what is the extent and nature of the intent that section 300
“thirdly” requires and how is it proved?”  In answer to the question the counsel for the accused relied on a
passage of the Chief Justice where he says that, “ if on the totality of circumstances justifies an inference
that there can be more than one view as to the intent of the accused, they either think that the intent did
not exist or they are left in doubt as to the intent, the accused is entitled to be aquitted”. To this the
prosecution quoted some lines of the previous paragraph of the same judgement  which said that if the
natural consequence of the act is certain result and no evidence is or no explanation is given then a jury
may find the accused guilty.  The same is the situation in the present case, no evidence or explanation is
given for the act of the accused; there was no explanation for causing such injury where the spear 
penetrated the abdomen of the deceased with such force that three coils of the intestines came out. The

http://lawpegasus.com/virsa-singh-v-state-of-punjab-air-1958-sc-465-1958-scr-1495/ 2/4
08/11/2017 VIRSA SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1958 SC 465: 1958 SCR 1495 – LAW PEGASUS

court held that, in the absence of any circumstances to show that the injury was caused accidently or
unintentionally, the presumtion would be that the accused had intented to cause the inflicted injury.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court. The accused is charged for the murder of Khem
Singh under section 300 ‘thirdly’ of the Indian Penal Code and was punished  for life imprisonment under
section 302 of the  Indian Penal Code. The appeal was dismissed.

 Posted in Case Briefs, Criminal Law

← PALANI GOUNDAN V. EMPEROR (1919) ILR 547 SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT

(MAD) WORKPLACE →

Leave a Reply

Connect with:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name * Email * Website

POST COMMENT

http://lawpegasus.com/virsa-singh-v-state-of-punjab-air-1958-sc-465-1958-scr-1495/ 3/4
08/11/2017 VIRSA SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1958 SC 465: 1958 SCR 1495 – LAW PEGASUS

Subscribe About Us Terms & Policies of Law

Law Pegasus
Pegasus
Your email address
Team Pegasus
Disclaimer
SUBSCRIBE Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Contact Us

Copyright © 2017 Lawpegasus.com

http://lawpegasus.com/virsa-singh-v-state-of-punjab-air-1958-sc-465-1958-scr-1495/ 4/4