Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

VIRSA SINGH

Defendant/Appellant

VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB
Respondent

COURT- TRIAL COURT OF Punjab,High court of Punjab,Supreme court of India


Decided on- 11 March,1958
Judge- BOSE,VIVIAN,IMAN,SYED,JAFFER,GAJENDRAGADKAR,P.B
Reported in- 1958 AIR 465 1958 SCR1495
Appellant-Virsa Singh
Respondent- State of Punjab
 Subject
In this case the provisions of section 300 of Indian Penal Code have been discussed.

 Facts:-
1. On July 13,1955 at about 8.p.m ,VIRSA SINGH ,the appellant made an unlawful
assembly with five other persons and attacked one Khem Singh with a spear.
2. As a result of an injury in the abdomen of Khem Singh with the spear ,his abdomen
was fractured and three coils of intestine came out of the wound which 2”*1/2.
3. Khem Singh died on the next day on July 14,1955 at about 5p.m.
4. In the Post Mortem report the doctor said that the injury was sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature.

 Trial Court-
 The accused/appellant was tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
individually and also jointly with other five accused under Section 302,324 and 323
read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
 The session Judge , therefore, applied section 300 ‘thirdly’ in this case ,convicted the
appellant VIRSA SINGH under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
imprisonment for life and all the remaining accused were acquitted of the murder
charge but we’re convicted under section 326,324 and 323 read with section 149
Indian Penal Code.

 High Court-
The High court acquitted all the accused excepting VIRSA SINGH ,whose conviction and
sentence were confirmed.

 Supreme Court
Issue
 What offence is made out as having been committed by the appellant?
 Argument
 The prosecution has failed to prove that there was an intention to inflict
a bodily injury to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
 The supreme court laid down the following facts before it can bring a case
under section 300’thirdly’:-
1. It must establish quite objectively ,that a bodily injury is present.
2. The nature of the injury must be proved.
3. It must be proved that it was an intention to inflict that particular bodily
injury and it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other third
kind of injury was intended.
4. It must be proved that injury must be sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature .
Supreme court after seeing the gravity of the injury caused with such a force that three coils of
bowels came out of the wound ,concluded that it would be perverse to conclude that he did not
intend to inflict the injury that he did where no evidence on explanation is given as why the
accused thrust the spear into the abdomen of deceased.
Therefore , Supreme court dismissed the appeal.

 Principles of law laid down:-


1. The intention is to be inferred from the nature of injury.
2. For murder ,the injury must be so serious that it may cause death.
3. The injury of the offence is linked with the seriousness of the injury.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Defendant/Appellant

Vs.

RAYAVARAPU PUNNAYYA &


ANOTHER
Respondent

COURT-TRIAL COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SUPREME


COURT OF INDIA
DECIDED ON- 15 SEPTEMBER,1976
BENCH- SARKARIA,RANJIT SINGH ,FAZALALI,SYED MURTAZA
 Facts:-
 In the village named Rampicherla ,the major dispute was going on between
two factions of the community.
 On the morning of July 23,1968 at 6:30 a.m.,the deceased' Sarikanda
Kotamraju' with two others boarded a bus ,the five accused followed the
deceased and when he got off the bus the five accused picked up heavy sticks
from a nearby hotel and indiscriminately pounded the legs and arms of the
deceased till the deceased becomed unconscious.
 Doctor after examining found 19 injuries out of which ,no less than 9 were
found to be grievous.
 According to opinion after autospy by Dr. P.S Sarojini – The injuries found on
the deceased were cumulatively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature.
 The Trial court had convicted the respondent of the offence of murder.It applied the
rule in VIRSA SINGH's case and the ratio of ANDA V. STATE and held the case was
clearly covered by clause (3) of section 300 of Indian Penal Code.The High court
disagreed and held not murder but one under section 304 part II. Of Indian Penal
Code.

 TRIAL COURT-
 Convicted accused 1 and accused 2 under section 302 as well as section 302 read
with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them imprisonment
for life.

 HIGH COURT-
 The High court altered their conviction to one under section 304 ,part II ,IPC and
reduced sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment each.

 SUPREME COURT
ISSUE:-
Whether the offence disclosed by the facts and circumstances
established by prosecution against respondent is murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder?
 Referring to VIRSA SINGH VS. STATE OF Punjab case:-

In which the meaning and scope of clause (3) section 300 explained.

It emerges that :-
Whenever the court have this issue it is convenient to approach in three stages:-

1. Whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of
another.(Proof-casual connection between act and death)
2. Whether that act of accused amounts to “culpable homicide”in section.299.
3. If the facts proved by prosecution comes under any of four clause of section 300.
If no,then the offence is “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”(under
section.304 part I&II).
If yes,but case comes within any exceptions in section 300,the offences would still be
“culpable homicide not amounting to murder”.
 The crux of the matter is , whether the facts established bring the case within clause
thirdly of section 300 of Indian Penal Code.
1. Whether the bodily injuries found on the deceased were intentionally inflicted by
the accused?
2. If so,were they sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature?
If both the elements satisfactory established offences will be murder, irrespective
of fact whether an intention on part of accused to cause death ,had or had not
been proved.
Both elements were established by the prosecution.
Attack was:-
a) Premediated
b) Pre-planned
c) Used of heavy sticks (3 inches in diameter)
d) Mercilessly pounded legs and arms (19 to20 injuries)
e) The formidable weapons used by accused in beating.
f) The savage manner of execution
g) The helpless state of unarmed victim
h) Intensity of violence

Here, first element of clause thirdly of section300 established.

 The second element established as Dr. Sarojini testified that the injuries of deceased
were cumulatively sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death .
 Thus , Supreme court restore the order of trial court convicting the accused for offence
of murder,with sentence of imprisonment for life.
ANDA AND OTHERS
Defendant/Appellant

Vs.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondent

COURT- TRIAL COURT OF RAJASTHAN,HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, SUPREME COURT


OF INDIA
DECIDED ON – 9 MARCH,1965
BENCH- K WANCHOO,M H MUDOLKAR,S SIKIRI
 FACTS:-
 On June 29,1961,at about 5 or 5-30 a.m,Bherun(deceased) was assaulted by number
of persons and received numerous injuries.He died as a result on a same day.
 Accused 1 and 2 with other appellants dragged deceased inside the house and beat
him severely.
 The doctor examined and performed the autopsy which revealed the existence of
over thirty wounds and injuries.
 According to doctor opinion all these injuries collectively can be sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.

 ARGUMENT:-
 Whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

 TRIAL COURT:-
 The trial court convicted the seven accused by the Judge,Merta under Section 302
read with section 149 of the code.

 HIGH COURT:-
 The High court convicted four appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

 SUPREME COURT:-
 The Supreme court dismissed the appeal.
 In this case the accused beat Bherun inside a house after dragging him there .The
number of injuries shows ,that all took part his arms and legs were smashed and
many braises and lacerated wounds were caused on his person.The injuries intended
to be caused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The
assault was this murderous and it must have been apparent to all the assailants that
the injuries they were inflicting in furtherance of the common intention of all were
sufficient.In the ordinary course of nature to cause death .In these circumstances it
cannot be said that the offences was not murder but only culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
KAPUR SINGH
Defendant/Appellant

Vs.
STATE OF PEPSU
Respondent

COURT- TRIAL COURT,HIGH COURT , SUPREME COURT


DECIDED ON – 15 SEPTEMBER,1954
BENCH-BHAGWATI ,JAGANNADHADAS, V AYYAR
 FACTS:-
 About a year before the date of incident,Bachan Singh son of deceased caused a
severe injury on the leg of Pritam Singh ,son of appellant resulting in amputation
of leg.
 The appellant harboured a grudge against the father and son since that time.
 On 30 September ,1952 when the appellant encountered the deceased, he and
his companion,one Chand Singh ,were responsible for the occurrence.
 Appellant inflicted as many as 18 injuries on arms and legs of deceased with a
gandasa.
 None of the injuries were inflicted on a vital part of the body.

 TRIAL COURT :-
 The appellant was convicted under section 302 and sentenced for imprisonment
for life was imposed on him.

 HIGH COURT:-
 The High court confirmed the decision of the trial court to convict appellant under
section 302.
 The learned session Judge awarded him a sentence of death subject to
confrontation by High court .The High court ,in due course , confirmed the death
sentence.

 SUPREME COURT
 Supreme court thoroughly analysed the fact that no injury was inflicted on any vital
part of the body of the deceased and the circumstances of this case clearly shows that
the intention of the appellant was not kill the deceased.
 The supreme court altered the conviction of the appellant from that under section302
to one under section 304(1) and instead of the sentence of death which has been
awarded to him which here by set aside ,the supreme court award him the sentence
of imprisonment for life.
To decide whether the offence is under section 299 or under section 300 depends upon the
degree of intention and knowledge.

1. whenever an offence of culpable homicide is proved the examination of murder


will also be set to be proved As they are genus and species respectively.
2. If culpable homicide is proved to be murder then next step is to check whether the
facts of the case falls under the exception of section 300 is proved then also it will
be case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 299 culpable homicide
 With the intention of causing death
 with he intention causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
 with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
In any case where 1st clause is not proved and it is found that the the death is
caused by bodily injury then 2nd part has to be examined and if death was
caused without bodily injury then the matter will go to 3rd part.
COMPARING 299 & 300
SECTION 300(1)
The act by which the death is caused is done with the of causing death…cases of intentional
causation death will fall and nothing more beyond that requires 299(1) requires intentional
causation of death.the moment s299(1)is proved it will automatically amounts to murder
u/s300(1)

SECTION 300(2)
If it is done with the intention of causing of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused… For 299(2)it has
to be proved that there was intention to inflict that particular bodily for eg To cause the
swollen appendix to burst,which is as likely to result in death .
In section 300(2)the additional element required is that the accused had the knowledge of
the peculiar condition of the victim i.e he knew that the victim had swollen appendix and
therefore if that particular injury is caused to him he it is likely to cause death of particular
victim.

SECTION 300(3)
If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death… For
examining the section 300(3) firstly it is to be prove that there a particular bodily injury and
medical opinion that the particular bodily injury is likely to cause death after that in section
300(3) it is requires that the bodily injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature.

Section 300(3) requires that the accused should have had the intention to cause a particular
bodily injury .The intention of the accused is seen only with respect to the bodily injury and
sufficiency part is not the part of the intention it is based of medical opinion.

So when there is the opinion of the medical expert that injury inflicted to a person by having
19 fractures and several internal injury then it comes under 300(3)

SECTION 300(4)
If the person knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing the death…firstly it has has to examine under sec
299(3) that the accused had the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death and medically
proved.

For sec 300(4) the knowledge should be of the imminently dangerous of the nature of the
act which means that it should be so dangerous that to the knowledge of the accused that it
will immediately cause the harm and also the knowledge should be that,the act must in all
probability cause death or serious bodily injury that might cause death sooner or later.