Case Analysis on Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

Background

1. The judgment was delivered by Justice Vivian Bose, who was born on 9 June 1891 in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. He served in the Nagpur High Court as an associate judge for 13 years and later became the first Christian and the only Eurasian judge in the top Court's history. During his tenure, he gave various remarkable judgments. One such judgment was Virsa Singh v State of Punjab.
2. Introduction
3. The appellant, Virsa Singh, has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC for the murder of Khem Singh. The appellant was tried with 5 others under section 304/149 & 324/149 & 323/149 Indian Penal Code (IPC) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), respectively, and individually charged with murder under section 302 IPC. Others were acquitted on an appeal in the High Court. On the other hand, the appellant's conviction under section 302 IPC was upheld by the High Court.
4. Facts of the Case
5. On 13-7-1955, about 8 PM, the petitioner along with 5 more members attacked the deceased with a spear thrust into his abdomen. This caused an injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature according to medical postmortem reports.
6. Issue
7. Whether the injury inflicted by the Appellant satisfied the requirement of Section 300, 3rdly of IPC?
8. About The Injury
9. There was only one injury on the body, which was caused by a spear thrust. The doctor examined Khem Singh while he was still alive. It was described as "a punctured wound 2 X ½ transverse in direction on the left side of the abdominal wall in the lower part of the iliac region just above the inguinal canal". Further, it was stated that "Three coils of intestine were coming out of wounds". The main incident happened on 13-7-1955 at 8 PM, and Khem died the following day at 5 PM.
10. Post Mortem Report
11. The doctor who conducted the post mortem described the injury as "an oblique incised stitched wound 2 ½ on the lower part of the left side of the belly, 1 ¾ above the left inguinal ligament. The injury was through the whole thickness of the abdominal wall. Peritonitis was present and there was digested food in that cavity, flakes of pus were sticking around the small intestine, and there were six cuts at various places, and digested food was flowing from three cuts." The doctor said that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, which is mentioned as a condition under section 101 of BNS.
12. Session Court and High Court Observations
13. Both the Session and High Court accepted the medical report that the shot was a fatal one. The learned session court convicted the 21-year-old petitioner under section 302 of IPC based on facts. They observed although he didn't intend to kill him, due to his silly act and rash act, it caused death. The court hence concluded the case should fall under section 300 "Thirdly". The learned High Court observed that "The whole affair was sudden and occurred on chance meeting".
14. Arguments Advanced
15. With the use of several words, it was argued from the defense side that the offense of murder was not committed after understanding the facts, as the prosecution didn't prove the intention to inflict a bodily injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, this argument was contradicted and presumed as a mistake.
16. Reasoning by Supreme Court
17. The apex court provided some categories the prosecution must fulfill to bring a case under section 300 of IPC "thirdly".

 

1. Firstly, it must establish that bodily injury is present. Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; thirdly it must be proved that the there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily which must not be accidental and even unintentional. Fourthly, once these are established, it must prove the injury based on these three bases is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under Section 300 "thirdly". Further the court said "It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced, that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional.
   
   1. Supreme Court Observations
   2. The supreme court observed that "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 "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.
       
2. The two clauses are disjunctive and separate. The first is subjective to the offender: "If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person." Firstly, it may be found that bodily injury was caused and the nature of the injury must be established, these are purely objective facts and leave no room for inference or deduction : to that extent the enquiry is objective; but when it comes to the question of intention, that is subjective to the offender and it must be proved that he had an intention to cause the bodily injury that is found to be present. 12. Once that is found, the enquiry shifts to the next clause— "and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
   
   The first part of this is descriptive of the earlier part of the section, namely, the infliction of bodily injury with the intention to inflict it, for instances , suppose a man's intention was only to inflict a blow on the lower part of the leg, or some lesser blow, and it can be shown that the blow landed in the region of the heart by accident, then, though an injury to the heart is shown to be present, the intention to inflict an injury in that region, or of that nature, is not proved. In that case, the first part of the clause does not come into play. But once it is proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present, then the earlier part of the clause we are now examining- "and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted" is merely descriptive.
   
   All it means is that it is not enough to prove that the injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; it must in addition be shown that the injury is of the kind that falls within the earlier clause, namely, that the injury found to be present was the 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.

Supreme Court Judgment
The apex court dismissed the appeal . The question was 'whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present.' If he can show that he did not, or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an inference, then, of course, the intent that the section requires is not proved. But if there is nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. It is not one for guesswork and fanciful conjecture.