Case – Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Facts
Virsa Singh thrust a spear into the abdomen of Khem Singh. Three coils of intestines came out of the wound. There was only one injury on the body of Khem Singh. Khem Singh died due to injury. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
It was argued by Virsa Singh 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.
Issue
Whether Virsa Singh caused Murder or Culpable Homicide?
- This argument is fallacious. If there is an intention to inflict an injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, 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.
- The two clauses are disjunctive and separate. The first is subjective, and the other— “If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person”—is objective.
The prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under section 300: First, it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
Second, the nature of the injury must be proved; these are purely objective investigations;
Third, 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,
Fourth, it must be proved that the injury 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.
- The question is …whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is proved, the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Virsa Singh for murder under Section 300, thirdly, which is punishable under Section 302, IPC.
