VIRSA SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB Case Summary (1958 SC)

VIRSA SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB Case Summary (1958 SC)

Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab case is about the section 300 IPC which deals with ‘Murder’ and section 302 IPC which deals with the punishment of murder. The appellant and five others were charged under sections 149 and 302 IPC.

BENCH

Honorable Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar

Honorable Justice Syed Jaffer Imam

Honorable Justice Vivian Bose

DATE OF JUDGMENT

11th March 1958

RELEVANT SECTIONS

Section 149, 302, 302, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

FACTS OF THE CASE

  • On 13th July 1955 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused, i.e. Virsa Singh, along with five other members by making unlawful assembly, attacked on deceased victim, i.e. Khem Singh with the spear thrust into his abdomen.
  • The injury resulted in the abdomen’s fracture of the deceased victim and three coils of intestines were coming out of the wound, which causes his death. According to the postmortem report Doctor stated that “the injury was sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature”.

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

ISSUES PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT

  • Whether the injury caused by the accused was sufficient in ordinary cause to death or not?
  • Whether the injury caused was accidental?

RATIO DECENDI OF THE CASE

The Honorable Trial Judge opined that the common intention was to injure the deceased not to have caused death, but death was caused because of rash actions. Therefore, he applied section 300(3) of IPC to convict the accused under section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

While others were acquitted from charges under section 302 of IPC but charged under sections 149, 323, 324, 326 of IPC.

Buy IPC Bare Act (Latest Edition)

DECISION

The Sessions judge concluded the accused was having the intention to cause grievous hurt. Therefore, section 300(3) is to be applied here, and the accused was convicted under section 302 of IPC, 1860.

Further, the High Court interrupted that section 300(3) of IPC was not applicable because the injury that was sufficient in the cause of death was not so proved.

But later on, the High Court accepted it as a fact after the Post Mortem report of the deceased.

In the end, The Honorable Supreme Court, by observing all facts, concluded that the accused had the intention to cause death that he used so much force that it penetrated the bowels and the three intestine coils came out of the wound.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, and the accused person was held for a death sentence under section 302 of IPC.

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!