Holding

The Court held that the appellant intentionally inflicted the fatal injury, satisfying Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC, and therefore the offence is murder.

Summary

Jai Prakash was convicted of murder for stabbing Champat Rai with a kirpan after an altercation at the house of Agya Devi, the deceased's wife, with whom the appellant allegedly had an illicit relationship. The sole eyewitness, the deceased's brother, testified that the appellant, after a verbal exchange, deliberately thrust the kirpan into the victim's chest, causing a fatal wound. The appellant appealed, arguing that the act was either a case of private defence or, at most, culpable homicide because only a single injury was inflicted. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "intention" under Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC, distinguishing it from motive, knowledge, or mere foresight. It held that the prosecution had proved the appellant's intention to inflict the specific injury, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, thereby attracting Section 300 and constituting murder. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction under Section 302 upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the facts satisfy Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC, making the offence murder rather than culpable homicide.
Whether the appellant had the requisite intention to cause the specific fatal injury.
Whether the defence of private self‑defence is applicable.
Whether a single fatal blow negates the intention required for murder.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304

Subjects

murderintentionSection 300 IPCprivate defencesingle blowculpable homicidemental elementkirpanhomicide

Judgment

JAI PRAKASH
A v.
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
..i..·
FEBRUARY 5 1 1991

B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVl AND
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.]

Indian Penal Code-Sections 300 Clause Thirt1lY1 J02-""-Held
'intention' if established as ingredient-Offence would be murder-
'Intention' 'motive', 'knowledge'-Diff1renct! @xplulned-Words 'r-
'intention'-'Knowledge' in Section 300== True mitaning of.
c --1'
The appellant, bad llllett eobnections with Agya Devi {P.W. 3);
wife of the deceased and in that connection he med tu Visit her house
quite frequently to which the deceaRd wul hls two brothers & mother
...
living separately in the adjacl!nt hoUSt! used to nbjed, It 11uty be pointed
D that Agya Devi was related to the appellant's wife. On August 18, 1973,
at about 11 p.m. when the decelW!d was not in house, the appellant ~
came to visit Agya Devi. A shortwhile later, the deceased also came
home and he objected to the presence of the appellant whereupon an
altercation and exchange of hot words ~nsued betwl!fli the appellot
and the deceased. The appellant took out a kirpan (chhurra) t'rom·hts
E waist and stabbed the decea8ed hi the chest. The deceased fell down
crying that the appellant has killed him and the appellant fled away
>--~ ..
with tbe weapon. The incident was witnessed by Agya Devi (P .W. 3)
and P. W. 2, deceased's brother from the roof of the house. The

F
deceased died as a result of' the injury. The prosecution was thereupon
launched against the appellant and the prosecution examinea arid"
amongst others P. W. 2 and P. W. 3. P. W. 3 turned hostile, with the
· result the prosecution was left with only P.W. 2 (brother of the
-
deceased) as eye witness. The trial court relied on the evidence of P,W.
2 and also held that his eviftence was corroborated by the P.Ws. 1 and --(
S'and recorded the conviction under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced ~
him to imprisonment for life for causing the death of Champat Ral, the
G deceased, which order was later affirmed by the Delhi High Court.
Hence this appeal by the appellant, after obtaining special leave. The
main conteritfon of the appellant is that even if the prosecution case Is to
be accepted, an offence of murder is not made out as the accused was
entitled to the right -of private defence; even otherwise the ace~

H
having inflicted only one injury which proved fatal, the offence would
be one amounting to culpable homicide.
>-
202
JAi PRAKASH v. STATE 203

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
A
. -~ HELD: 'Intention' is different trom 'motive' or ignorance or
'negligence'. It is the 'knowledge' or 'intention' with which the act is
done that makes difference, in arriving at a conclusion whether the
offence is culpable homicide or murder. [208E-F]
B
The language of Clause Thirdly of Section 300 speaks of intention
at two places and in each the sequence is to be established by the
prosecution before the case can fall in that Clause. The 'intention' and
'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind
and their
... existence has to be gathered from the circumstances, such as
the weapon used, the ferocity of atta~k, multiplicity of injuries and all
.... other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the C9<le designedly
used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and it is accepted that the
c
knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing an act is not
the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue.
Firstly, when an act is don.e by a person, it is presumed that he, must
have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or D
could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same
thing as 'intention' that such consequences should ensue. As compared
to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere
foresight of the consequences, namely the purposely doing of a thing to
achieve a particular end. [211H-212CJ
E
'Knowledge' as contrasted with 'intention' signify a state of
mental realisation with the bare state of conscious awareness of certain
facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive. On the other
hand, 'intention' is a conscious state in which mental faculties are
aroused into activitI and summoned into action for the purpose of
achieving a conceived end. [213B-C] . F

The circumstances. would show that the accused intentionally
inflicted ttiat injury though it may not be pre-meditated one. All the
circumstances wouid certainly indicate such a state of mind namely that
he aimed and inflicted that injury with a deadly weapon. In the absence
of evidence or reasonable explanation to show that the appellant did not G
intend to stab in the chest with a kirpan with that degree of force suffi-
cient to penetrate the heart, it would be perverse to conclude that he did
not intend to inflict that injury that he did. When once the ingredient
'intention' is established then the offence would be murder as the
intended injury is found to be suffident in the ordinary course of nature.
to cause death. Therefore an offence of murder is made out. [218D-E] H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] l S.C.R.

Tho/an v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1984] 2 SCC 133; Jagrup Singh v.
A· State of Haryana, (1981] 3 SCC 616; Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1981] 4 SCC 484; Ku/want Rai v. State of Punjab, (1981] 4 SCC 245;
Hari Ram v. State ofHaryana, (1983] 1SCC193; Jagtar Singh v. State
of Punjab, (1983] 2 SCC 342; Ram Sunder v. State of U.P., Crl. Appeal
No. 555/83 decided on 24. i0.1983; Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana,
'B (1972] 3 SCC 4·os; Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1954 SC 652; Willie {William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(J955]2SCR 1140; Harjinder Singh alias Jinda v. Delhi Admn., (1968]·
2 SCR 246; Laxman Kalu Nikalji v. State of Maharashtra, (1968] 3 SCR
685; Gurmail Singh and Ors. v.-State of Punjab, [1982] 2 SCC 185,
referred to. ·
c Virsa Singh v. Stat~ of Punjab, .(1958] SCR 1495, followed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
.....
No. 50 of 1979.
, From the Judgment and Ord1;:r dated ~3.12.1977 of the Delhi
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1975.
D
R.K. Garg, R.K. Jain, Railjan Mahapatra·and P.K. Jain for the
Appellant.

V:C. Mahajan, Ashok Bhan (NP) and Ms. A. Subhashini (NP)
for the Respondent.
E >-- -
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. The appellant, the sole
accused in this case, has been convicted under Section 302 1.P.C. and
sentenced to imprisonment for life by the High Court of Delhi for
F causing the murder of one Champat Rai, the deceased in the case.

The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of P. W. 2, the
sole eye-witness. Learned counsel for tpe appellant contended that the
uncorroborated testimony of P.W. i'is not wholly reliable and there-
fore the conviction cannot be sustained. However, we may at this stage
G point out that the main submission has been that even if the prosecu-
tion case is to be accepted; an offence of murder is not made out as-the
accused was entitled to the right of private defence. Even otherwise,
according to the learned counsel, having regard to the fact that as the
appellant is alleged to have inflicted only a single injury which proved
fatal, the offence committed would be one amounting ·to culpable
H homicide. To appreciate these submissions in a proper perspective, we
JAi PRAKASH v. STATE [REDDY, J.) .205

think it necessary to state the facts of the case.
A
The deceased was married to Agya Devi examined as P. W. 3. He
lived with his wife in a house in East Azad Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi. fa
the adjoining house were living his mother, P.W. 1 and his two
brothers P.Ws 2 and 5. The appellant was married to a cousin of Agya
Devi, P. W. 3 and he used to visit the house of the deceased ostensibly B
as a relative. The deceased, P. Ws 1, 2 and 5 objected to the appellant's
visits as they suspected illicit relations between the appellant and Agya
- ~ Devi P.W. 3, wife of the deceased. On August 18, 1973,at about 11
f .M. when the deceased was not in the house, the appellant came to
visit Agya Devi. A few minutes later the deceased also came home and
he objected to the presence of the appellant. On this there was an
altercation and exchange of hot words. Then the appellant took out a c
Kirpan (Churra) from his waist and stabbed the deceased in the chest.
The deceased fell down crying that the appellant has killed him. The
appellant with the weapon ran out of the house. The incident was
""'-- -,/ witnessed by P. W. 2 from the roof where he had retired for sleeping
during the night. P.W. 2 and his another brother P.w.· 5 chased the D
appellant but as the appellant who was armed with a leathal weapon
threatened them and made good his escape. On return they found the
deceased dead. P.W. 3 was sitting next to the body and was crying.
The information was sent to the Police and P ~W. 18, the Sub-
Inspector, Kotwali Police Station came to the scene of occurrence and
__.i. recorded the statement of P. W. 2 on the basis of which the case was E-
registered against the appellant. He seized certain incriminating arti-
cles, held the inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. He also
recorded the statements of the material witnesses. One of the
recoveries made by him consisted of a sheath of the kirpan. The
Doctor, P.W. 17, examined the dead body and conducted the post-
mortem. He found one incised stab wound on the left side of the chest F
4- which proved fatal. The particulars of the injury are:-
'y--
(1) One incised stab wound, horizontally placed on the (L)
side of the chest 1" lateral to the left side and 2" below and
medial. to the (L) Nipple size 1" x 1/2" x with spindal shaped
appearance and with either margins pointed. The margins of the G
wound were smooth and the collection of blood in the soft '
tissues.

(2) -One incised wound over right little finger at the base of
second phalynx on dorcal surface size 3/4" x 4/10'' x bone deep.
There is collection of blood in the soft tissues and there was cut . H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] I S.C.R.

mark on the base of second phalynx right little finger. The wound
A was bandage~ with a p*ece of bandage and cotton soiled in blood.
The wound is not spindle shaped in appearance. The margins
were smooth. This injury was a simple one and not due to a
separate blow.

B The Doctor opined that injury No. 1 was sufficient .to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was
haomorrhage and shock due to injuries. The accused was arrested on
28.8.73 !!nd at !tis instance the ki~pim was recovered. After completi-
tion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The accused
pleaded not guilty and denied the recoveries.
c The prosecution examined P.W. 2, the brother of the deceased
and P.W. 3 Agya Devi, wife of the deceased. But P.W. 3 turned
hostile. Consequently the prosecution was left with the testimony of
P. W. 2, the remaining eye-witness. Both the courts below relied on the
evidence of P.W. 2 and they also held that his evidence was cor-
D roborated by that of P. Ws 1 and 5. ·

As hereinbefore mentioned, the learned counsel for the appel-
lant submitted that the evidence of P. W. 2 on which the case entirely
rests, cannot be accepted. We have gone through his evidence care-
fully as well as that of P.Ws. 1and5. The evidence of P.W. 2 does not
E suffer from any serious infirmity. At any rate there is other corrobora-
tive evidence also. We see absolutely no reason to disagree with the
findings of the courts below regarding their evidence.

The learned counsel, however, submitted that the accused must
have acted in right of self-defence. According to the learned counsel,
F P. W. 2 himself has deposed that there was exchange of hot words
between the appellant and the deceased which would have resulted in . . . .,
a fight and the appellant having reasonably apprehended danger to his ~·' /
life, inflicted the injury on the deceased in self-defence. We see no
basis for this submission. P.W. 2 has no doubt stated that there was
exchange of hot words between the appellant and the deceased but he
0 did not speak about any fight between the two. On the other hand his
evide·nce shows that when the deceased came and questioned the
accused then there was exchange of hot words. The accused immedia-
tely took out a Kirpan (Churra) from his waist and stabbed the 'r-
deceased. Both .the courts below also have rightly rejected this plea.
Therefore we see absolutely no grounds to come to a different
ff. conclusion.
JAi PRAKASH v. STATE [REDDY, J.) 207

The next and rather the main submission is that the offence A
committed by the appellant would only amount to culpable homicide
inasmuch as he has inflicted only one injury. In support of his submis-
sions, he relied on some of the decisions of this Court. In Tho/an v'.
State of Tamil Nadu, [1984] 2 SCC 133 the accused who dealt a single
knife blow on the chest found to be sufficient to cause death, was
convicted under Section 304 Part II 1.P;C., disagreeing with the con~ B
tention on behalf of the Stat~ that Clause III of Section 300 I.P.C.
would be attracted in such a case. In arriving at such a conclusion, this
Court took into consideration various surrounding circumstances
namely that the presence of the dj!ceased at the scene of occurrence
was wholly accidental and that the accused dealt only one blow. It
must also be mentioned that the deceased, who was a stranger in that C
case, came out of his house and cautioned the accused not to indulge in
abusive language as ladies were present in that area. The accused
thereupon q\l~Stioned him and when both were remonstrating, he took
out a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on the right side of
the chest. On these facts, this Court held:
D
"We are satisfied that even if Exception I is not attracted,
the requisite intention cannot be attributed to the appel-
lant. But in the circumstances herein disc;ussed he wielded
a weapon like a knife and therefore he can be attributed
with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury
which was likely to cause death. In such a situation, he £
would be guilty of committing an offence under Section 304
Part II of the Indian Penal Code."

- In support of this view, reliance is placed on some earlier deci-
sions of this Court in Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana, [1981] 3 SCC
616; Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, [1981] 4 SCC 484; Ku/want Rai , F
v. State of Punjab, [1981] 4 SCC 245; Hari Ram v. State of Haryana,
...,.- (1983] 1 SCC 193; Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCC 342
and Ram Sunder v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 555/83 decided
on 24.10.1983.•The learned counsel submitted that the observations
made in these cases apply on all fours to the facts of this case. Accord-
ing to him, there was an altercation and during the same the appellant ,G
suddenly whipped out a kirpan and inflicted only one injury and it is
therefore reasonable to infer that he would not have intended to cause
-...: that particular injury and consequently Clause Thirdly of Section 300
is not attracted. The submission though put foward in a simple way
leads to an important legal quandary regarding the interpretation of
Clause Thirdly of Section 300 1.P.C. which is considered to be a
208 ~UPREME. COURT REPORTS [ 1991] l S.C.R.

difficult and intricate issue by the courts. Howeve_r, Virsa Singh v.
A State of Punjab, [1958] SCR 1495 is considered to be an authoritative
pronouncement in this regard. But perhaps inspired by some of the
decisions rendered thereafter both by the High Courts and the
Supreme Court there is a marked change in the trend of the conten-
tions regarding the scope of Clause Thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C. It has
readied a stage of over simplification and it is very often argued that
whenever tle~th is due to a single blow the offence would be culpable
homicide and not murder. Somewhat to the same effect is the conten-
tion in the instant case.

In our view it is fallacious to contend that when death is caused

C
by a Single !Jlow Clause Thirdly is not attracted and therefore it would
not amount to murder. The ingredient 'Intention' in that Clause is very
Important and that gives the clue in a given case whether offence
involved is murder or not. For the purpose of considering the scope of
-
Clause 3 it is not necessary for us to embark upon an examination of
the entire scope of Section 299 and 300 I.P.C. It is enough if we start
D with Virsa Singh's case. Clause Thirdly of Section 300 1.P.C. reads
thus:

· "3rdly-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 c.ourse· of nature to
E: _cause death, or-"

-
We may note at this stage that 'intention' is different from 'motive' or
'ignorance' or 'ne_gl~ence'. It is the 'knowledge' or 'intention' with
which the act is done that makes difference, in arriving at a conclusion
whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. Therefore, it is
F necessary to know the meaning of these expressions as used in these
provisions. Before doing so we shall first refer to the ratio laid.down in
Virsa Singh's case aud the meaning given to the expression 'intention'.

The appellant Virsa Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for
life under Section 302 I.P.C. There was only one injury on the
G . deceased and thatwas attributed to him. It was caused as a result of
the spear thrust and .the Doctor opined th'at the injury was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Courts also found
that the whole affair was sudden and _occurred on a chance meeting. 'r--
Peritonitis also supervened which hastened the death of the deceased.
It was contended that the prosecution has not proved that there was an
H intention to infli~t a bodily, injury that was sufficient to caus_e death in·
JAi PRAKASH v. STATE [REDDY, J.] 209

the ordinary course of nature and therefore the offence was not one of
A,
murder. This contention was rejected. After analysing the Clause
Thirdly it is held by the Court that the prosecution must prove:

"First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily
injury is present;

Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved;
there are purely objective investigations.

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.,

Once these three elements are proved to be present,
...,.... the enquiry proceeds further and,

Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type · . D
just de~cribed made up of the three elements set out above
is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential
and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."

The Court further added thus: E

"One. of these four elements is established by the prosecu-
tion (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution .
throughout) the offence is murder under Sec. 300, 3rdly. 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 distinc-
tion between the two). It does not even matter that there is
no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause
death. 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 one has
a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nat~re and claim
that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of
that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] l S,C,R,

only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that
A· the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional." \
· (empahsis supplied)

The learned Judges also observed thus:

B "In the absence of evidence, or reasonable explanation,
that the prisoner did not intend to stab in the stomach with
a degree of force sufficient to penetrate that far into the
body, or to indicate that his act was a regrettable accident
and that he intended otherwise, it would be perver!ie to
conclude that he did not intend to inflict the injury that he
c did. Once that intent is established (and no other conclu·
sion is reasonable possible in this case and in any case it is a
question of fact), the rest is a matter for objective determi-
-
nation from the medical and other evidence about the na·
ture and seriousness of the injury."

O Adverting to the contention that there is only a single blow, it is
further held;

''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. If
B he can show that he did not. or if the totality of the cir-
cumstances justify such an inference, then, of course, the
intent that the section requires is not proved. But if there is
nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the appellant
inflicted it, the only possible inference is that he intended
to Inflict it, Whether he knew of its seriousness, or
intended se(ioµs consequences, it neither here nor there.
The question, so for as the intention is concerned, is not
whether he intended to kill, or to inflicit an injury of a
particular degree of seriousness, but whether he intended
to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of
tpe injury is proved the intention to cause it will be pre-
G. sumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an
opposite conclusion. But whether the intention is there or
not is one of fact and not one of law. Whether the wound is
serious or otherwise, and if serious, bow serious, is a totally
separate and distinct question and has nothing to do with
the question whether the prisoner intended to inflict the
H injury in question."
JAi PRAKASH v. STATE [REDDY, J.J 211.

At another passage which has to be noted in this context reads thus:
A
"It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be linked up
with the seriousness of the injury. For example, if it can be
proved, or if the totality of the circumstances justify an
inference, that tlie prisoner only intended a superficial
scratch and that by accident his victim stumbled and fell on B
the sword or spear that was used, then of course the offence
is not murder. 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. His intention in such a case
would be to inflict a total!Y different injut:Y: The differe~ce, is C
not one of law but one of fact; and whether the conclusion
should be one way or the other is a matter of proof, where
necessary, by calling in aid all reasonable inferences of fact ·
in the absence of direct testimony, It is not one for guess-
work and fanciful conjecture."

Referring to these observations, Division Bench of this Court in
Jagrup Singh's case observed thus:

"These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locys
classicus. The test laid down in Virsa Singh's case for the
applicability of clause Thirdly is now ingrained in our legal E
system and has become part of tlie rule of law."

The Division Bench also further h~ld that the decision in Vim.z Sin1:h's
case has throughout been followed as laying down the guiding princi•
pies. In both thes~ cases it is clear!Y laid down that the p{osecl!t!ol!
must prove (1) that the body 4!jmy is present, (2) that the injUJY is sufficient F
'y-- in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, (3) that the accused
intended to l'nflict that particul~r i!Dury that is to say it was not acci-
den!al or unintentional or that some other kind of injury' was intendeE.
In other words the 3rd Clause consists of two parts. The first part is
that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be
present and the second part that the said injury is sufficient to cause Q
death in the ordinary course of nature. Under the first part the pro-
----.. secution has to prove from the given facts and circumstances that the
intention of the accused was to cause that particular injury, Whereas
the second part whether it was sufficient to cause death is an obj1;'9iiv~
enquiry and it is a matter of inference or deduction from thi parti-
culars of the injury. The language .of Clause Thirdly of S~ction 300 H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 1 S.C. R.

speaks of intention at two piaces and in each the sequence is to be
established by the prosecution before the case can fall in that Clause. The ~~.
'intention' and 'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible
states ·of mind and their existence has to be gathered from the cir-
cumstances, such as the; weapon used, the ferocity of attack, multip-
1
B .licity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances. The framers
·of the code designedly used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and
it is accepted that the knowledge of the consequences which may result
in doing an act is not the samething as the intention that such conse- y-· ·
quences should ensue: Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is
presumed that he, must have been aware that certain specified harmful

c
co~sequences would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare
awareness and not the same thing as 'intention that such consequences
should ensue. As compared to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires some-
thing more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the
purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.
-
Kenny in "Outlines of Criminal Law" (17th Edition at page 31)
D
has observed:

"Intention: To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to
reach a desired objective'.; the noun 'intention' in the pre-
sent connexion is used to denote the state of mind of a man
who not only foresees but also desires the possible conse- ;.....
E
quences .of his conduct. Thus if one man throws another.
from a high tower or cuts off his head it would seem plain
that the both foresees the victim's death and also desires it:
the desire and the foresight will also be the same if a person
knowingly leaves a helpless invalid or infant without
nourishment or other necessary support until death super- .
F
venes. It will be noted that there cannot be intention unless · ·(
there is also foresight, since a man must decide to his own-\
satisfaction, and accordingly must foresee, that to which his
. express purpose is directed.

Again, a man: cannot intend to do a thing unless he
G desires to do it. It may well be a thing that he dislikes
doing, but he dislikes still more the consequences of his not
doing it. That is to say he desires the lesser of two evils, and '}'-
therefore, has made up his mind to bring about that one."

·H Russell on Crime (12th Edition at Page 41) has observed:
JAi PRAKASH v. STATE [REDDY, J.] 213

"In the present analysis of the mental element in crime the
word 'intention' is used to denote the mental attitude of a A
man who has resolved to bring about a certain result if he
can possibly do so. He shapes his line of conduct so as to
achieve a particular end at which he aims."

It can thus be seen that the 'knowledge' as contrasted with 'intention' B
signify a state of mental realisation with the bare state of conscious
awareness of certain facts in which human mind remains supine or
inactive. On the other hand, 'intention' is a conscious state in which
mental faculties are aroused into activity and summoned into acti9n
for the purpose of achieving a conce:lved'end. It means shaping of one's

- conduct so as to bring about a certain event. Therefore in the case of
'intention' mental faculties are projected in a set direction. Intention c
need not necessarily involve premeditation. Whether there is such an
intention or not is a question of fact. In Clause Thirdly the words
"intended to be inflicted" are significant. As noted already, when a
person commits an act, he is presumed to expect the natural conse-
quences. But froin the mere fact that the injury caused is sufficient in D
the ordinary course of nature to cause death it does not necessarily
follow that the offender intended to cause the injury of that nature.
However, the presumption arises that he intended to cause that
particular injury. In such a situation the Court has to ascertain whether
the facts and circumstances in the case are such as to rebut the pre-
sumption and such facts and circumstances cannot be laid down in an E
abstract rule and they will vary from case to case. However, as pointed
out in Virsa Singh's case th~ weapon used, the degree of force released
in wielding it, the antece4ent relations of the parties, the manner in
which the attack was made that is to say sudden or premeditated,
whether the injury was inflicted during a struggle or grappling, the
number of injuries inflicted and their nature and the part of the body F
where the injury was inflicted are some of the relevant factors. These
and other factors which m(ly arise in a case have to be considered and if
on a totality of these circumstances a doubt arises as to the nature of
the offence, the benefit has to go to the accused. In some cases, an
explanation may be there by the accused like exercise of right of
private defence or the circumstances also may indicate the same. G
Likewise there may be circumstances in some cases which attract the
first exception. In such cases different considerations arise and the
· Court has· to decide whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of
the exception, though the prosecution established that one or the
other clauses of Section 300 I.P.C. is attracted. In the present enquiry
we need not advert to that aspect since we are concerned only with H
scope of clause Thirdly of Section 3001.P.C.
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] I S.C.R.

The decision in Virsa Singh's case has throughout been followed
A in a number of cases by the High Courts as well as by the Supreme
Court. Such decisions are too numerous and it may not be necessary
for us to refer to all those cases. However, it would be useful to refer
to a few decisions which have a bearing to the point in issue. In Chahat
Khan v. State of Haryana, [1972] 3 SCC 408 the dece~sed was waylaid
B by the accused who were armed with lathis. The accused had both gun
and a lathi but he used only the lathi and struck a blow on the head
with sufficient force and the solitary blow with the lathi was found to
be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and it was
held that the case fell within clause Thirdly as there was. clear intention
to cause such bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was
c
sufficient to cause· death. In Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR. 1954 SC 652 there was exchange of abuses between the
two parties arrned with lathis and in the course of the fight, the accused
struck one lathi blow on the head of the deceased which causes a
-
fracture of the skull resulting in death, and it was held that he had
given the blow with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. In
D Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 2 SCR 1140
there was a sudden quarrel leading to an exchange of abuses and in the
heat .of the moment a solitary blow with a hockey stick had been given
on the head. It was held that the offence amounted to culpable
homicide ·punishable under~ection 304 Part II I.P.C. In Harjinder
Singh (aliasitnda) v. Delhi Admn., [.1968] 2 SCR 246 the facts are that
E there was a sudden commotion and when the deceased intervened in
the fight, the accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased. and
the deceased was in a crouching position presumably to intervene
when he received the blow. Though the injury was found sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, he was convicted for the
offence of culpable homicide. The intention to cause that particular
F injury was not present. To the same effect is the decision in Laxman
Kalu Nikalji v. State of Maharashtra, [1968] 3 SCR 685 where the
accused lost his temper and took out a knife and gave one blow during
1
a sudden quarrel.
\
In all these cases the approach has been to find out whether the
G ingredient namely the intention to cause the particular injury was pre-
sent or not and it is held that circumstances like sudden quarrel in a
fight or when the deceased intervenes in such a fight, would create a
doubt about the ingredient of intention as it cannot definitely be said
in such circumstances that the accused aimed the blow at a particular
part of the body. When an accused inflicts a blow with a deadly
H weal'on the presumption is that he intended to inflict that injury but
JAI PRAKASH v. STATE [REDDY, J.] 215

there may be circumstances like those, as mentioned above, which
rebut such presumption and throw a doubt about the applicat.ion of A
clause Thirdly: Of course much depends on the facts and circums-
tances of each case. Now let us examine some of the cases relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellant.

In Ku/want Rai's case a Bench consisting of D.A. Desai and B
R.B. Misra, JJ. held in a hit and run case that where it cannot be said
that the accused intended to inflict the very fatal injury, clause Thirdl5'
is· not attracted. That was a case where only one blow was given with
the dagger in the epigastrium area and the facts would go to show that
-there was no pre-meditation, no prior enmity and a short quarrel pre-

- ceded the assa•1lt. However, we do not find any discussion about the
scope of clause Thirdly. Randhir Singh's case was decided by a Bench
consisting of D.A. Desai and Baharul Islam, JJ. In that case, a single
c
head injury was inflicted by a college student on the deceased with a
weapon supplied by his father and the deceased died after six days and
there also an assault was preceded by a quarrel between the father of
the accused and the deceased. The Bench observed that: D

"Merely because the blow landed on a particular spot on
the body divorced from the circumstances in "'.hich the
blow was given it would be hazardous to say that the
accused intended to cause that particular injury. The
weapon was not handy. He did not possess one. Alterca- E
tion took place between his father and the deceased and he
gave ·blow wi~h--:-kassi. In our opinion in these circums-
tances it would be difficult to say that the accused intended
to cause that particular injury."

Before the same Bench, in Gurmail Singh and Others v. State of F
Punjab, [1982] 3 SCC 185 this question again came up for considera-
tion. In that case, an indecent joke cut by the accused with the wife of
a P. W. led to a quarrel and the deceased who was nowhere in the
picture tried to intervene, two of the accused gave some blows on him.
Then Gurmail Singh, the appellant therein, gave a single blow with
spear on the chest which proved fatal. It was contended by the State G
that clause Thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C. was attracted. It is observed
that:

"But it was said that the case would be covered by Para 3 of
Section 300 in that _Gurmail Singh intended to cause an
injury and the injury intended to be inflicted.was proved to H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] I S.C.R.

be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. This argument is often raised for consideration by
this Court and more often reliance is placed on V.irsa Singh
v. State of Punjab, [1958] SCR 1495. We would have gone
into the question in detail but in Jagrup Singh v. State of
Haryana, [1981] 3 SCC 616, Sen. J. after examining all the
previous decisions on the subject, observed that in order to
bring the case within Para 3 of Section 300, l.P.C., it must
be proved that there was an intention to inflict that parti-
cular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature
was sufficient to cause death. This view was further
affirmed in a decision rendered in Randhir Singh v. State of
Punjab, [1981] 4 SCC 484. We are of the opinion that in the
facts found by the High _Court it could not be said that
accused 1 Gurmail Singh intended to cause that particular
bodily injury which in fact was found to have been caused.
-
Ma:y be, the injury inflicted may have been found to be
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
What ought to be found is that the injury found to be
present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. It
is difficult to say that with confidence in the present case
keeping· iri view the facts found by the High Court that
accused 1 Gurmail Singh intended to cause that very injury
whi'ch was found to be fatal."

Tile"iefo're this detision also affirms the view taken in Virsa Singh's
fase· . tiien came the ciecisiOll' in Jagtar Singh's case rendered by a
B'.l:fricil c·on'sisting of b.A. De·sai and Amarendra Nath Sen, JJ. In that
case a Single knife blow was inflicted in the chest and it was found to be
s·CfffiCien{ iii fiie ordinary course of nature to cause death.' The Bench
tied& {ffa( cl'ause' Tliirdly was not attracted in view of circumstances i.e.
f-hefe tile' a'tcus·ed was a young man and inflicted the injury on the spur
M tfie'. nfomenf and to some extent on deceased's provocation in a
stidde'fi eilance· quarrel and on a trivial issue. The Bench observed that:
"The cause of quarrel though trivial was just sudden and in
this background the appellant, a very .youilg'man gave one
biow. He couid not be imputed with fhe intention to cause
death' of the iiifentibri to cause that particular injury which '--·
/
prove·& faf~f."
U itr tfiiS· ,case; tflere' is iii:>' fefefonc·e to Virsa Singh's case but there is a
JAI PRAKASH v. STATE [REDDY, J.] 217

reference to Jagrup Singh's case which decision, as noted already, has
followed the ratio in Virsa Singh's case.

Then came the decision in Tholan's case on which the counsel
has heavily relied upon. In that case also the appellant inflicted only a
single knife blow on the chest of the deceased sufficient to cause deat.h
but it was on the spur of the moment. The Division Bench, consisting
of D.A. Desai and R.B. Misra, JJ. took into consideration that tbe
deceased had nothing to do with the chit organised by one K.G ..Rajan
in re~pect of which there was a quarrel between the appellant and th.e
organisers of the chit and when the. accused was abusing the organi-
sers, the deceased seemed to have told the accused not to misbehave in

- the presence of the ladies and not to use vulgar and filthy language .
The presence of the deceased was wholly accidental and the appellant
on the spur of the moment inflicted the fatal injury on the chest. Tl;t_e
Division Bench relying on the earlier decisions under similar circums-
.c

tances convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II. A-reference ii;
also made to the decision in Jagrup Singh's case. The~~fore in this case
also, the ratio laid down in Virsa Singh's case is presumably followed. ~

In all these cases, injury by a single blowwas fqund to be ..~uf{i
cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Supreme
Court took into consideration the circumstances such as sudden,quar-
rel, grappling etc. as mentioned above only to assess the state of min9
namely whether the accused had the necessary intention.t9,q~u.,Se,thAt ~
particular injury i.e. to say that he desired expi;essly that such 1iµjury
only should be the result. It is held in all these ca,Ses th.at·there,.w!is,ri9
such intention to cause that particular injury.as ~n those circum~tan~es,
the accused could hav.e been barely a"'. are i.e. 1only ;!J.ji.9 ,kµo_\\'.l~~gei:Qf
the consequences. These circumstances under which ,tl!e ..aPP..~!l~pt
happened to inflict the injury it is felt or atleast _a.i~oubt,aro~e 'th11t.~ll tp
his mental faculties could not have been roused as.to.f<?rm #Jl·ip.tention
to achieve the particular result. We may point .9µt :!bat ,w..e .~re 1 p.~t
concerned with the intention to cause death in which case.it willibe a
murder sjm_plic!ter tihless exce~tio~ is attracte~.-~V{~ ,~;e c~pc_e"rµ.~p
under clause Thirdly with the intention be cause th?t p~u!!cular, ~njury
which is a subjective inquiry and wl!en once such jµtention is .estflp- @
lished and if the intended injury is found objectively.to be suffi.~~ept j;n
-: the ordinary course of nature to cause death, cla.us~e ,Thjrgly is
attracted and it would be murder, unless on_e of the ~x;ceptiop.s tp
Section 300 is attracted. If on·th,e other hand this ing~ed!eQt,pf- )'!!~p
tion' is not established or if a reasonable doubt _aris.~s intt11iSt[eg~rd
then only it would be reasonable to infer t!i~t.CI.a_u~.e Khjrdiy 1 tsr!l~t r!f
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1991] I S.C.R.

A attracted and that the accused must be attributed knowledge that hi
inflicting the injury he was likely to cause death in which case it will be
. culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 Part II l.P.C.

Bearing these principles in mind, if we examine the facts in the
present case, Clause Thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C. is fully attracted.
B The appellant was having illicit relations with Agya Devi, wife of the
deGeased and his visits to her house were resented and objected. On
the day of occurrence, the accused visited the house when the
deceased was not there and he went there armed with a kirpan. When
·the deceased came and objected to his presence there was only an
altercation and exchange of hot words, and not a fight. Thereupon he
c took out a knife and stabbed on the chest of the deceased resulting
instanteous death of the deceased. The above circu111stam:es would
show that the accused intentionally inflicted that injury though it may
-
•'
not be pr~-medltated one. All the above cfrcumstaiices would certainly
indicate. such a state of mind namely that he aimed and inflicted that
injury with a deadly weapon. As observed in Virsa Singh;s case in the
D absence of evidence or reasonable explanation to show that the appel-
lant did not intend to stab in the chest with a kirpan with that degree of
force .sufficient to penetrate the heart, it would be perverse to con-
clude that he did not intend to inflict that injury that he did. When
once the ingredient 'intention' ·is established then the offence would
be murder as the intended injury is found to be sufficient in the ordi·
E nary course of nature to cause death .. Therefore an offeoce of murder
is made out. Accordingly the appeal is di~missed.

Y.:Lal Appeal dismissed.