Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Bakhtawar And Anr. vs State Of Haryana on 6 October, 1978 cites

Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1958

5. The evidence of these two eye witnesses is trustworthy and there is no reason to discard the same. The evidence of these two witnesses receives ample corroboration not only from the statement of Risal Singh (P.W. 8) but also from the testimony of the doctor who has opined that out of the injuries detailed above, injuries Nos. 11 and 12 were grievous and were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. For the commission of the offence of murder it is not necessary that the accused should have the intention to cause death. It is now well settled that if it is proved that the accused had the intention to inflict the injuries actually suffered by the victim and such injuries are found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the ingredients of Clause 3rdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code are fulfilled and the accused must be held guilty of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Code. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab 1958 SCR 1985 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Royava-rasu Punnayya and Anr. . There is no doubt in our mind that the accused in the present case had the intention to cause the injuries found on the body of the deceased. As already stated, those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The ration of the two decisions just above cited, therefore, applies fully to the facts of the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 663 - Full Document
1