KAPUR SINGH vs STATE OF PEPSU Case Summary (1956 SC)

KAPUR SINGH vs STATE OF PEPSU Case Summary (1956 SC)

Kapur Singh vs State of PEPSU case deals with the criminal offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860, where a comparison of clause (b) of Section 299 of IPC and clause (3) of section 300 was drawn. The criminal law is based on the concept of Mens rea, i.e. the state of mind of the offender capable of committing the crime. The offence, in this case, falls under sections 302 and 304 IPC.

BENCH

Honourable Justice Bhagwati

Honourable Justice Jagannadhadas

Honourable Justice V Ayyar

DATE OF JUDGMENT

15th September 1954

RELEVANT SECTIONS

Section 32, 299,300, 302, 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

FACTS OF THE CASE

  • That there was a fight between the father of the accused and the father of the victim. During the fight, the father of the accused got severely injured, which lead to the amputation of his leg.
  • The accused, i.e. Kapur Singh, wanted to take revenge against his father’s amputation of leg.
  • With the passage of time, Kapur Singh planned to take revenge from victim’s father by taking help from his friend, i.e. Chand Singh.
  • On 30th September 1952, Kapur Singh and Chand Singh attacked the victim with gandasa and hit 18 times on his hands and legs.
  • The injuries inflicted led to his death.
  • The accused, i.e. Kapur Singh, absconded after the incident.

Buy Best Book of IPC by K.D. Gaur (Latest Edition)

ISSUES PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT

Whether the accused had the intention to kill the victim as under section 300 IPC or not?

RATIO DECENDI OF THE CASE

The Court opined the decision based on the distinction between both the sections, i.e. 299 and 300 of IPC. Definitions of both sections define about two ingredients the intention to cause death and an act that causes death. However, culpable homicide is a less serious offence than compared to murder. The Supreme Court opined injuries were inflicted on the victim on his arms and legs and no injury was recorded on any vital organ. The intention was only to grievous hurt the victim by attacking his legs and arms. There was no intention to kill the victim.

Buy IPC Bare Act (Latest Edition)

DECISION

The Sessions Court held the accused liable under section 302 IPC. The Honorable Supreme Court observed that under the circumstances the case was to be a proper section under 304(1) IPC rather than under section 302 IPC. Therefore, Supreme Court overruled the judgment of Sessions Court and held the accused liable under Culpable Homicide and set aside the death penalty by Sessions Court and awarded him life imprisonment.

Found this case summary useful? Check out other landmark IPC Case summaries here >>> IPC Case Summaries

Share on print
Print PDF
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Harry Rana

Harry Rana

See Legal News, Judgements, Jobs Monthwise

Recent Posts

About Us

Law Planet is specially created for law enthusiasts. We provide courses for various law exams. We also write about law to increase legal awareness amongst common citizens.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!