19BAL077

Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab

This case is dealing with Sec 300(3) under IPC which defines Murder. In this case appellant
Vira Singh has been found guilty of murder by the first court , further High Court of Punjab
upheld the decision of first court . High Court said   SEC 300 (3) cannot be applied as the
intention of the accused was not proved to cause such bodily injury which is sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Section 300(3),IPC states that “culpable
homicide is murder if it is 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”

The following are necessary ingredients to be proven by the prosecution to bring a case under
section 300(3), IPC -

1. Presence of a bodily injury.

2. The nature of the injury.

3. Intention to inflict that particular bodily injury and it was not accidental or unintentional.

4. The injury inflicted is sufficient in itself under ordinary course of nature to cause death.

These points revolve around the nature of injuries and as the intention of the person is very
difficult to prove, and in order to get to a definitive conclusion of such cases, the intention
must be inferred from the nature of the injury and is the best possible way for bringing an
action. 

Ghapoo Yadav & Ors Vs State of MP (2003) 3 SCC 528

This case teaches us the fourth exception of Section 300, IPC. The exception 4 of Section
300, IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. It is structured upon the exception 1of the said
section where there is total deprivation of self-control where as in case of exception 4, there
is only that heat of passion which curtains men's sober reason and urges them to acts which
they would not do otherwise. There is provocation leading to an act in this exception. A
sudden fight takes place, for which both parties are to be or not to be blamed. It may be that
one of them made the first move, but if the other had not fuelled it by their own conduct it
would not have taken the consequential turn it took.
19BAL077

Exception 4 can be invoked if a death is caused without premeditation in a sudden fight,

without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
In this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal
altercation in the beginning which escalated to an assault on the deceased and he died
because of those injuries. There were 7 injuries and causing of such injuries cannot be termed
to be either in a cruel or unusual manner in this particular case so exception 4 can be taken as
a valid defence.

Gyarsibai v. The State AIR 1953 MB 61

In this appeal to the high court it was clarified that the session court was not clear on under
which clause of section 300, IPC the appellant has murdered her 3 children. Section
300(4),IPC states that “If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death
or such injury as foresaid.” The term eminently dangerous act requires that the danger should
be immediate and close at end. Hence, under this clause, the intention to kill anybody is not
required in order to constitute the offence of murder. The recklessness and inexcusability of
an act must be by the facts and circumstances of each case, because, an imminently
dangerous acts would be considered murder only if it has been done without any reasonable
excuse for taking such a risk. When the appellant left the house on the day of occurrence, she
said while leaving the house that she will jump into the well. Hence it can be inferred that she
was not in abnormal state of mind and had full knowledge of the nature of act. Clearly the act
of the appellant falls within the section 300(4) IPC.

S.N. Hussain v State of Andhra Pradesh

In this case we learn about section 304A of IPC that states “Causing death by negligence.—
whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to
culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Being rash is different from being negligent. To be rash denotes the act of being reckless and
doing without paying heed to the consequences. So, the person who acts rashly tends to know
what can result or what can be the consequences. Furthermore, the degree of such rashness
and negligence must be very high and gross as to run a risk of causing deadly injury to
19BAL077

others. In this case it was established that an unavoidable accident was caused due to the
negligence of the gateman in keeping the gate open and inviting the vehicles to pass hence
the bus driver was acquitted.