Virsa singh v state of punjab. Analysis of Section 300 (3) of IPC 2019-01-05

Virsa singh v state of punjab Rating: 4,5/10 334 reviews

Bachan Singh v State of Punjab

virsa singh v state of punjab

It is not one for guesswork and fanciful conjecture. Once that intent is established and no other conclusion is reasonably possible in this case, and in any case it is a question of fact , the rest is a matter for objective determination from the medical and other evidence about the nature and seriousness of the injury. The police came to the hospital, the first information report was lodged at 4. Learned counsel has also apprised the Court that prosecution evidence in this case has been concluded and the case is now fixed for defence evidence on 14. Kartar Kaur, mother of the informant, who had tucked her salwar as she waded through the water, came forward and she was given a blow with kirpan by Kulwant Singh on the back of her left leg, whereupon she fell down. Admittedly, the family of the deceased and the appellants belong to the same village.


Next

Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2002 SC 2710

virsa singh v state of punjab

But for that Khem Singh may perhaps not have died or may have lived a little longer. 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. It is the duty of a common carrier to overcome the presumption of negligence and it must be shown that the carrier had observed the required extraordinary diligence of a very cautious person as far as human care and foresight can provide or that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event. The Supreme Court took into consideration the circumstances such as sudden quarrel, grappling etc. Send your modifications to our editors for review. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, 19. He completed investigation and filed challan.

Next

Virsa Singh v. State Of Punjab

virsa singh v state of punjab

The prosecution case has been supported by P. All it 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 is of the kind that falls within the earlier clause, namely, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. With the greatest respect to the learned Single Judge, we are unable to agree in the face of the abovementioned pronouncement of the Federal Court that the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Rule 102 could be said to have been satisfied by the hearing afforded to the appellants at the appellate and revisional stages. Courts while determining the required intention give due caution to the circumstances in which the incident occurred. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. In theaftermath of assassination of Prime Minister Bandernaike in 1959, Ceylon hurriedlyreintroduced capital punishment for murder. The order could be deemed to have been passed only under Cl.

Next

Virsa Singh v. State Of Punjab

virsa singh v state of punjab

Before adverting to the rival contentions, as noticed hereinbefore, it may be noticed that accused nos. The appellant Virsa Singh has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under s. It was argued that the facts set out above do not disclose an offence of murder because the prosecution has not proved that there was an intention to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Whether Milkha Singh actually received the notice or not the fact remains that even he did not appear in response to the notice, which was addressed to his dead father. In support of this contention, Mr. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No evidence or explanation is given about why the appellant thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased 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.


Next

Virsa Singh. V. The State Of Punjab

virsa singh v state of punjab

It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature not that there is any real distinction between the two. But that is not because the prisoner did not intend the injury that he intended to inflict to be as serious as it turned out to be but because he did not intend to inflict the injury in question at all. It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be linked up with the seriousness of the injury. You can add text, modify any part of the entry or suggest subject matters that the entry should cover. Hicks was found and charged with multiple crimes, released, and now the state appeals. 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. Attention has also been paid to the intent requirement by this section.


Next

Virsa Singh v State of Punjab on 11 March 1958

virsa singh v state of punjab

All the substantive sentences awarded to the respective accused persons were directed to run concurrently. Any order passed under Rule 102 without satisfying the requirements of the proviso would be without jurisdiction. Four appellants, along with accused Balwinder Singh and Sucha Singh, were tried and while the aforesaid two person were acquitted by the Trial Court, Appellant No. The learned counsel would contend that as the date and place of occurrence as also the nature of offence stand admitted, it was for the accused persons to prove that the informant party were the aggressors and they exercised their right of private defence. The first contention of Mr. In California another study from the Rand Co-operation, suggests that keeping habitualcriminals locked up would do more to reduce crime than any rehabilitation efforts.


Next

Virsa Singh And Others… v. The State Of Punjab And Others…

virsa singh v state of punjab

Whether he knew of its seriousness, or intended serious consequences, is neither here nor there. For cases to fall within Clause 3 , it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature not that there is any real distinction between the two. The State Of Punjab has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3. Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.


Next

Virsa Singh…Petitioner v. State Of Punjab…S

virsa singh v state of punjab

Whether Milkha Singh actually received the notice or not, the fact remains that even he did not appear in response to the notice, which was addressed to his dead father. The two matters are quite separate and distinct, though the evidence about them may sometimes overlap. The question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present. The area which had been retrieved from the appellants in pursuance of the order of the Managing Officer having been found by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to be more than what could be taken away from them under the Impugned order, the case was remanded to the Naib Tahsildar Sales -cum-Managing Officer, Nakodar, with a direction to find out the quantum of land which was to be retrieved in Implementation of the cancellation order. The doctor thought that injury was only likely to cause death. Despite suffering such injuries why they were not rushed to hospital has not been explained. .

Next

GURCHARAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB.

virsa singh v state of punjab

Since it does not provide any legislative guidelines as to when life should bepermitted be extinguished by imposition of death sentence. The depth could be easily traced upto 2 cms. He was seriously injured and was examined by Dr. In his opinion, the injury was a gun shot injury. Peritonitis also supervened and that hastened the death of Khem Singh. The question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present.

Next

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 SCR 1495

virsa singh v state of punjab

The intervening structure, anterior chest wall, 4th and 5th ribs on anterior side pericardial, heard, left lung were badly damaged. The sufficiency of the injury was objectively established by the nature and quality of the acts taken with the consequence which was intimately related to the acts. It was not disputed at any stage that the notice of the proposed cancellation was issued to a dead person, that the same was not served on appellants Nos. The first contention of Mr. She had been inflicted with as many as five sharp-cutting injuries, three on the leg and two on the wrist.


Next