Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1958
In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, a leading
forerunner on the point, this Court held that the
prosecution must prove that bodily injury is present. The
nature of the injury must be proved. Thirdly, it must he
proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not
accidental or an intentional,or that some other kind of
injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to
be present, the court must further proceed with the enquiry
and find that the prosecution has proved that the injury
described is 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. Once these four elements are
established by the prosecution the offence of murder falls
under clause thirdly of Section 300. It matters not that
there was no intention to cause death or that there was no
intention even to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. Once it is proved that the intention to cause the
bodily injury actually found to be present, the rest of the
enquiry is purely objective to be deduced by inference. But
where no evidence or explanation is given about why the
accused thrust a spear into the abdomen of the decease with
such force that it penetrated the bowels and three coils of
the intestines came out of the wound and that digested food
oozed out from cuts in three places, it would be perverse to
conclude that he did not intend to inflict the injury that
he did. The question whether there is intention or not is
one of fact and not one of law. Whether the wound is serious
or otherwise, and if serious, how serious, is a totally
separate and distinct question and has nothing to do with
the question whether the accused intended to inflict the
injury in question. It was held in that case that the
offence was one of murder falling under clause thirdly of
Section 302.
Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 1978
In Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar v. State
of maharashtra [1979] 1 SCC 132, the facts proved were that
the appellant gave a blow on the head of the deceased old
man who was advising him not to quarrel. The injury caused
to the brain from one end to the other resulted in fracture
as could appear from the evidence of the doctor. It would
show that the accused must have struck the blow on the head
of the deceased with an iron bar with very great force.
Accordingly it was held that exception 4 does not apply
though there was sudden quarrel and that the fight was not
premeditated to cause death. It must be shown that the
injury caused is not cruel one. The conviction for offence
under s. 302 by the High Court reversing the acquittal by
trial court was upheld.
1