Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3 judge bench consisting of Justice Vivian Bose, Justice Gajendragadkar and Justice Jafer Imam.  

Facts 

• The incident in question in this case occurred at about 8pm on 13th July 1955 as a result of which Khem Singh died. 
• The death was caused as a result of a spear thrust which was caused by the appellant and the doctor who examined the deceased said that three coils of intestines were coming out of the wound. 
• The doctor said that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 
• The appellant in this case was tried individually under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The other persons were tried under Section 302 read with Section 149, 324/149 and 323/149. 
• The High Court acquitted all the other accused person but convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. 
• It was agreed by both the Courts that there was only one injury, and the death was caused as a result of that injury. 
• The Appeal was hence filed before the Supreme Court against the conviction under Section 300 of IPC.

Issues Involved

• Whether the accused can be held liable for murder under Section 300 of IPC? 

Observation  

• The Court observed that thirdly of Section 300 provides that the act was done with the intention of causing bodily injury and such bodily injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 
• The Court held in order to bring a case under thirdly, Section 300 the following has to be proved: 
  • Firstly, it must establish quite objectively that bodily injury was present. 
  • Secondly, the nature of injury must be proved; these are purely objective investigations. 
  • Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that bodily injury, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. 
  • Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type described above must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 
  • Once the above four conditions are satisfied it can be said that the case falls under Section 300 of IPC. 
• The Court observed that in the present facts there is no evidence or reasonable explanation about why the appellant thrust the spear with such force that it penetrated the bowels, and three coils of intestine came out of the wound.  
• There is nothing to show that his act was regrettable or as a result of an accident. 
• Thus, the question to be answered is not whether the appellant intended to cause a serious or trivial injury, rather it is whether the appellant intended to cause that injury. 
• Thus, the Court in this case convicted the appellant and dismissed the appeal.    

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment which laid down the principles to determine if a particular act falls under Section 300 of IPC.