Fact of the case : 

The incident in question in this case occurred at about 8pm on 13th July 1955 as a result of which Khem Singh died. The death was caused as a result of a spear thrust which was caused by the appellant and the doctor who examined the deceased said that three coils of intestines were coming out of the wound. The doctor said that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 

The appellant Virsa Singh has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Section 103(1) of BNS) for the murder of Khem Singh. The appellant was tried with five others under Sections 302/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of IPC (103(1),118(1),115(2)/190 BNS) and he was also charged individually under Section 302 of IPC (Section 103(1) of BNS)  on ground that although only one injury has been caused by him on victim but the same was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The Sessions Judge observed that although the common intention was to injure the deceased and not to cause death, but death was caused because of rash and silly actions and forceful blow given by Appellant (stabbing of Khem Singh with a spear). Therefore, Section 300(Section 101 of BNS), 3rdly (3) of IPC applied and Appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The other accused were charged under Sections 323/149, 324/149 and 36 of IPC  ( 115(2)/190, 118(1)/190 and 3(7) BNS) but acquitted from the charges under Section 302 of IPC. On appeal, the High Court has upheld the Appellant's conviction. Hence, the matter reached before the present court.

Singh lodged an appeal, contending that he lacked the requisite intention to cause death. Inquiry conducted pertained to whether intention to cause death was a sine qua non for the characterization of an act as murder under Section 300(3) of the Indian Penal Code. (Now Section 101(3) of BNS, 2023).

Issues Involved

Whether the accused can be held liable for murder under Section 300 of IPC (Section 101(3) of BNS) ? 

Held : The Supreme Court observed that to bring a case under Section 300(3) of 1PC (Section 101(3) of BNS) the prosecution must prove:

1. That a bodily injury is present, 

2. Nature of injury must be proved (objective investigation). 

3. That there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury 

4. That intended injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. 

The Court observed that in the present facts there is no evidence or reasonable explanation about why the appellant thrust the spear with such force that it penetrated the bowels, and three coils of intestine came out of the wound.There is nothing to show that his act was regrettable or as a result of an accident. 

Thus, the Court in this case convicted the appellant and dismissed the appeal.