LexVIRSA SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1495 explai11 when it is deemed to have taken place outside 1958 any State whatsoever that State ma)'.· be. I am there- M. P. v. Sundara- fore unable to see that the Explanation has any facet ramier & co. showing what would be a sale inside Andhra. v. The conclusion that T reach is that the Sales Tax The State oJ Act with which these cases are concerned does not Andhra Pradesh authorise the taxing of a sale under which goods are Sarkar J. delivered in Andhra but the property in them passes in Madras. In this view of the matter I do not think it necessary to discuss the various other grounds on which the respondent's right to tax these sales was also challenged. · In the result I would allow these petitions. BY COURT : In view of the opinion of the majority, the petitions are dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed. VIRSA SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (JAFER IMAM, GAIENDRAGADKAR and VIVIAN BOSE JJ.) Criminal Trial-Culpable homicide amounting to murder- Prosecution to prove-Presence and Nature of Injury-Intention to cause that Particular Injury, which was 118<1 accidental or un- intentional and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature-Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), s. 300, 3rdly. The accused thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased. This injury caused his death. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was found by the Sessions Judge that the accused intended tc cause grievous hurt only. In his opinion however the third clause of s. 300 Indian Penal Code applied. He accord- ingly convicted and sentenced the accused under s. 302 Indian Penal Code. The High Court upheld the conviction. It was argued that the third clause of s. 300 Indian Penal Code did not apply as it was not proved that the accused intended to inflict a 1958 March II. 1496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] 1958 bodily injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature as s. 300 lndim Penal Code third clause states, Virsa Singh "If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any v. person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient Tlie State of Punjab in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" : Held, that the prosecution must prove the following before it can bring a case under s. 300 Indian Penal Code third clause. (1) It must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present. (2) The nature of the injury must be proved; these are purely objective investigations. ( 3) It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. ( 4) It must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. The third clause of s. 300 Indian Penal Code consists of two parts. Under the firsi part it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present and under the second part it must be proved that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The words "and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted" are merely descriptive. All this 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 found to be present was the injury 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. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 90...of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 21, 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated June 26, 1956, of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Ferozepore in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1956. · Jai Gopal Sethi and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant. N. S. Bindra and T. M. Sen, for the respo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.