Facts

The case revolves around Virsa Singh, the appellant, who was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC (now Section 103, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), for the murder of Khem Singh. The incident occurred at around 8 PM on 13th July 1955. During a quarrel, the appellant, along with five others, allegedly attacked Khem Singh and others.

Virsa Singh inflicted a single spear blow on Khem Singh, which caused a deep abdominal wound. The doctor who examined the deceased stated that three coils of intestines were protruding from the wound, and that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The appellant was individually charged under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 BNS), while the other accused were charged under Sections 302/149, 324/149, and 323/149 (common object under unlawful assembly). The Sessions Judge observed that although there was no common intention to cause death, the rash and forceful action of the appellant led to a fatal injury.

The Sessions Court held that the case fell under Section 300 clause thirdly (now Section 101, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), which defines murder as causing bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Accordingly, Virsa Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The other accused were acquitted of the murder charge but faced punishment under lesser offences.

The Punjab High Court upheld the conviction, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court in appeal.

Issues

i. Whether the single injury caused by the appellant was sufficient to attract murder under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 BNS)?

ii. Whether the act was done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death?

iii. Whether the intent to cause death is necessary for a conviction of murder?

iv. Whether the appellant’s action was rash or negligent or intentionally inflicted?

Analysis

• The Court interpreted Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC (Section 101 BNS), which applies when there is intent to cause bodily injury, and the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

• To determine applicability under Section 300 Thirdly, the Court laid down four essential conditions:

• i. A bodily injury must be present — objectively established.
• ii. The nature of the injury must be proved — through medical and factual evidence.
• iii. There must be intention to inflict that very injury — not accidental, unintentional, or mistakenly inflicted.
• iv. The injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

• Once all four conditions are met, the case falls squarely within Section 300 Thirdly, making it murder under Section 302 IPC.

• The Court emphasized that the intention to kill is not required. What must be shown is that the accused intentionally inflicted a bodily injury, and that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. Once that is established, it qualifies as murder under Section 300 Thirdly, regardless of whether the accused intended the death to occur.

• In the present case the appellant thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased. Three coils of intestines protruded from the wound. The doctor confirmed that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

• There was no evidence of accident or mistake, no indication of remorse or regret by the appellant and no alternative explanation offered for the severity of the injury.

• The Court clarified that the question is not whether the injury was serious or trivial, but whether the appellant intended to inflict that particular injury.

Judgement

The Supreme Court, after carefully analysing the facts, medical evidence, and legal principles, held that all four essential conditions required under clause “Thirdly” of Section 300 IPC were fully satisfied in this case. The Court emphasized that the injury inflicted by the appellant was both intentional and targeted at a vital part of the body—the abdomen. It further noted that the severity of the wound, as confirmed by the medical expert, clearly established that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court rejected the possibility that the injury was accidental or unintentional, pointing out the lack of any reasonable explanation or mitigating circumstances offered by the accused. The bench clarified that what mattered under the law was not whether the appellant intended to cause death, but whether he intended to cause the injury that led to death, which he clearly did.

Accordingly, the Court held that the act squarely fell within the scope of Section 300 Thirdly, and thus constituted murder under Section 302 IPC. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Virsa Singh by the lower courts were upheld. This judgment has since become a foundational precedent for interpreting the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, particularly in cases involving a single fatal injury.

Conclusion:

The case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab is a landmark decision that clarified the interpretation and application of Section 300 clause Thirdly of the IPC, which defines certain types of culpable homicide as murder. The Supreme Court laid down a clear four-fold test to distinguish between mere bodily injury and an intentional injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The judgment made it clear that the intention to inflict a specific injury, rather than the intention to kill, is the critical factor in such cases. By affirming Virsa Singh’s conviction under Section 302 IPC, the Court not only upheld the principle of accountability for intentional and fatal injuries but also set a lasting precedent that continues to guide Indian criminal jurisprudence.