Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed that the evidence established murder under Section 302 IPC, and therefore dismissed the appeals.

Summary

The case involved the murder of Rangasamy, a Naidu community member who supplied electricity to the Adi Dravida community for a festival, leading to a violent retaliation by eight accused who formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted him with casuarina sticks, causing fatal head injuries. The trial court convicted five of the accused under sections 147, 148, 452, 431 and 302 IPC; the High Court later acquitted three of them for lack of attributed overt acts. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the reliability of three eye‑witnesses, the motive stemming from communal enmity, the delay in filing the FIR, and whether the injuries satisfied the legal test for murder. It held that the witnesses’ testimonies were credible, the motive was established, the accused acted with deadly weapons in an unlawful assembly, and the injuries were sufficient to cause death, thereby meeting the elements of murder under Section 302. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions.

Issues considered

Whether the eye‑witness testimony of PW‑1, PW‑2 and PW‑3 is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
Whether the acts of the accused constitute murder under Section 300/302 IPC or only culpable homicide under Section 304.
Whether the delay in lodging the First Information Report defeats the prosecution’s case.
Whether overt acts can be legally attributed to accused Nos.6‑8 for the purpose of conviction.
Whether the relationship of PW‑1 and PW‑2 to the deceased impairs the reliability of their evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304, s. 431, s. 452

Subjects

murderIPC Section 302unlawful assemblyeye‑witness testimonycommunal violencedelay in FIRcriminal appeal

Judgment

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 252

A PADMANABAN
v. ,., '
STATE BY INSPECTOR 01= POLICE, TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2009 etc.)
JULY 31, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 452, 431 and 302 -
Prosecution under - Death caused with deadly weapons -
c Eye-witnesses to the incident·- Conviction by courts below -
On appeal, held: Conviction confirmed - Evidence of the eye-
witnesses are reliable - Their depositions corroborated by
medical evidence - Motive for the offence proved - Offence
not covered u/s. 304 (Part I) /PC.
D
Appellants-accused, along with other accused were
prosecuted for having killed one person. As per '"•
prosecution, there was long-standing enemity between ~
the two groups in the village to which the accused and
the deceased belonged. The accused and deceased
E
were from the same group. The accused assaulted the
deceased because he supplied electricity line to the
people of the other community for their festival. Pws 1, 2
and 3 were the three eye-witnesses to the incident.
Accused No. 1 absconded and accused No. 3 died during
F pendency of the trial. Trial court convicted accused Nos.
2 and 4 to 8 ulss. 147, 148, 452, 431 and 302 IPC. High
Court, in appeal, acquitted accused Nos. 6 to 8 on the
ground that no overt act had been attributed to them; and
.'
that PW 3 did not assign any specific role so far as they
G were concerned. However, conviction of appellants-
accused was confirmed. Hence the present appeals, by ).

appellants-accused.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
H 252
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 253
POLICE, TAMIL NADU
HELD: 1.1.Both the courts below have placed implicit A
·- >- reliance on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. In view of their
depositions, there is no reason to differ therewith. [Para
15] [261-G]

1.2. PWs 1 and 2 may be closely related to the B
deceased but the same, by itself, would not be a ground
for rejecting their testimonies outright. PW-3 was not
related to the deceased. The injuries suffered by the
deceased have been proved. The medical evidences in
--;. no uncertain terms corroborate the depositions of the
eye-witnesses. The injuries on the person of the
c
deceased were found to have been inflicted by the
appellants and the appellants alone. [Para 16) [261-H;
262-A-B]

1.3. The eye-witnesses account clearly proved the D
motive on the part of the accused to commit the said
-! offence. The deceased being a member of the Naidu
~
Community was reprimanded by his community member
as he had tried to do something for the members of the
other community. The fact that the shop of the deceased E
was located near the residential colony of the members
of the Adi Dravida Community is not in dispute. It is also
not in dispute that they held a function on the Republic
->c: Day. The fact that electrical connection was taken from
the shop premises of the deceased wherefor a case for F
theft of electrical energy was recorded has been
established. [Para 16] [262-A-D]

1.4. The plea that PW-1 could not have seen the
occurrence from a distance of 10 feet cannot be
accepted. The occurrence has taken place inside a shop G
and not inside a residential house. The shop being open,
there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW-1
to state in details in regard to the manner in which the
occurrence had taken place. Presence of PWs 2 and 3 at
the place of occurrence has also been found to be H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A acceptable by the courts below. [Para 17) [262-G-H; 263-
>\
A-BJ 1

1.5. Some delay might have been caused in lodging
of the First lnformatiion Report, but, the same has
sufficiently been explaiined. No doubt lodging of a First
B
Information Report at the earliest possible opportunity is
desirable, but, the courts cannot also ignore the ground
realities that the relatives of the deceased would give
priority to the treatment: of a severely injured person. The
action on the part of th1~ prosecution witnesses, in giving ..-
c priority to the treatment to the injured was wholly
justifiable. [Paras 18 and 19) [263-B-E]

1.6. It cannot be said that PWs 2 and 3 are chance
witnesses. PW-3 is owner of a shop which is situated by
0 the side of the shop belonging to the deceased. The place
of occurrence is a small village. PW-2's presence,
therefore, at the place of occurrence, cannot be doubted +
or disputed. [Para 21) [264-B-C] •

2. It cannot be said! that the case is covered u/s 304
E
(Part II) IPC. Appellants had formed an unlawful assembly.
They came to the plaice of occurrence with deadly
weapons. The overt acts attributed to them resulted in
causing serious injuriE!S on the head of the deceased.
They not only were gri,evous in nature, the skull of the
F deceased was also found fractured. When three injuries
have been caused on v1ital parts of the body, there is no
doubt that the appellants knew that the said injuries were
likely to cause death or cause such bodily injury which
may result in death. [Para 23) [264-E-F]
G
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; Kesar
Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana 2008 (6) SCALE 433,
relied on.

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and
H
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 255
POLICE, TAMIL NADU
Anr. (1976) 4SCC 382; Mohd. Asif v. State of Uttaranchal JT A
2009 (4) SC 1; Bala Baine Unga Raju v. State of A.P. 2009
(7) SCALE 73, referred to.

Case Law Reference:

AIR 1958 SC 465 Relied on. Para 24 B
2008 (6) SCALE 433 Relied on. Para 25

(1976) 4 SCC 382 Referred to. Para 25

JT 2009 (4) SC 1 Referred to. Para 25 c
2009 (7) SCALE 73 Referred to. Para 25

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1375 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 7.8.2006 of the High D
Court of Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 1868 of 2003.
-+
WITH

Crl. A. No. 1376 of 2009. E
V. Kanagraj, S. Thananjayan, P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran,
Nituja Prakash, Naresh Kumar for the Appellants.

~ R. Nedumaran, V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Bammiyampatti is a small village situated in the District
of Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu. Amongst others, it is G
inhabitated by two communities known as 'Naidu' community
i and 'Adi Dravida' community. The fact that there has been
longstanding enmity between the members of the said
communities is not in dispute.
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A 3. A function was to be organized by Adi Dravida
community. Rangasamy, deceased was having a grocery shop. -\ .,
He despite being belonging to the Naidu community, permitted
..,..
the members of the other community to take electricity from his
shop. Having come to learn of the same, the accused persons,
B originally eight in number, got infuriated. Rangasamy was
threatened with dire consequences for his act in supplying
electrical energy to the members belonging to the Adi-Dravida
community at about 10 p.m. on 29.03.1997. Next morning, i.e.,
on 30.03.1997, a·t about 11.30 a.m., the accused persons
c came to his shop with casuarina sticks, trespassed therein and -I"

at the instigation of Accused No. 1 T. Purushothaman Accused
No. 3 Murugan and Accused Nos. 6 to 8 caught him whereafter
Accused No. 2 Ravi hit the deceased with a casuarina stick
on the left side of the he!ad, Accused No. 4 Mohan assaulted
him on the right side of the head with a casuarina stick and
D
Accused No. 5 V. Padmanaban assaulted him on the right side
of the face near the eye causing grievous injuries to him. The ,_
incident was witnessed by PW-1 Viswanathan, PW-2 Chandra
and PW-3 Raman.
~
.
E It is not much in dispute that PWs 1 and 2 along with one
Govindasamy took the injured Rangasamy to the Omalur
Government Hospital at about 12.20 p.m. He was treated by
Dr. Kumudha Rani, PW-7. Mention of the incident found place
in the accident register (Exhibit P-14). The deceased was -..
F referred to the Government Hospital, Salem for further treatment
by PW-7, upon taking into consideration the seriousness of the
injuries suffered by him.

The Omalur Government Hospital at Salem was situated
G at a distance of about 23 kms. from the place of occurrence.
The deceased was examined by Dr. G. Sundaramurthy, PW-8
at about 1.00 p.m. It is evidenced by the entries in the Accident ...
Register which was marked as Exhibit P-15. However, the
injured was taken to a private nursing home known as
Shanmuga Nursing Home. It is also not in dispute that despite
H

.
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 257
POLICE, TAMIL NADU [S.S. SINHA, 'J.]
.- ). making entries in the accident registers both by the attending A
doctors at the Omalur Government Hospital as also Salem
Government Hospital, the SHO of the concerned police station
was not intimated thereabout. Dr. Murugavel, PW-9 examined
...... Rangasamy. He, however, did not respond to the treatment. He
expired at about 4.00 a.m. on 31.03.1997. B

4. PW-1 lodged a First Information Report at about 8.30
p.m. on 30.03.1997. The said First Information Report was
~ recorded by PW-13 V. Shanmugham, Inspector of Police of
Theevattippatti Police Station. It was registered as Crime Case C
No. 184 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 341 and 307
of the Indian Penal Code. On the death of Rangasamy,
however, the charge was altered by PW-13 to Sections 147,
148, 452, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The body of
the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. The post
mortem report suggests that he died because of head injuries D
...+ sustained by him.·
5. At the outset, we may place on record that the Accused
No. 1 absconded. He did not face trial. Accused .No. 3 died
during pendency of the trial and, thus, the case against him E
abated.

~ 6. Before the Additional District and Sessions Court - cum
- First Fast Track Court, Salem, the prosecution examined 13
witnesses to prove its case against the accused person. A F
large number of documents being Exhibits P-1 to P-32 were
also marked. Material exhibits brought on record were marked
as MOs 1 to 12.

The learned Sessions Judge recorded a judgment of
conviction against Accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 8. They were G
.l sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. A fine of
Rs. 500/- was also imposed on them and in default thereof to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 50 days.

7. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 preferred appeals before H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A the High Court questioning the correctness of the said judgment ,. ...
of conviction and sentence. By reason of the impugned
judgment, whereas the High Court accepted the appeals
preferred by the Accused Nos. 6 to 8 on the premise that no
overt act had been attributed to them as also on the ground that
B PW-3 did not assi!~n any specific role so far as they are
concerned, dismissed the appeals of the appellants herein.
-
8. Appellants are, thus, before us.
~
9. Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, learned counsel
c appearing on behalf of Accused No. 2 Ravi and Accused No.
4 Mohan, Mr. V. Kanagraj, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the Accused No. 5 Padmanaban submitted:

(i) The prosecution having regard to the genesis of the
D occurrence cannot be said to have proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. ~

(ii) The conduct of the prosecution witnesses should be •
held to be suspicious as they had taken the
deceased to a hospll:al which is 23 kms. away from
E the place of occurrence.

(iii) Despite th19 fact that the police station was adjacent
to the hospital, no First Information Report was ~
lodged although the concerned prosecution
F witnesses had sufficient time therefor.

(iv) The delay in lodging the First Information Report
has not been explained.

(v) The doctors PWs 7 and 8 who were said to have
G treated the deceased even did not inform the police
.A
although the incident was recorded in the accident
registers [Exhibits P-14 and P-15].

(vi) All the accused persons having allegedly gone to
H the shop of the deceased with a common intention,
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 259
POLICE, TAMIL NADU [S.S. SINHA, J.]

. },
there was absolutely no reason as to why all of them
were not treated alike having regard to the fact that
the Accused Nos. 6 to 8 were acquitted of the
A

charges levelled against them by the High Court.

(vii) The High Court committed a serious error in
B
passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed
to take into consideration the individual overt acts
of the appellants herein in the light of deposition of
PWs 1, 2 and 3.

(viii) No reliance ought to have been placed on the c
deposition of PW-1 as occurrence having been
taken place inside a structure, he could not have
witnessed the incident in its minutest details from
a distance of 10 feet.
D
(ix) PWs 1 and 2 being closely related to the deceased,
-+ no reliance should have been placed on their
...
testimonies by the High Court without any
corroborative evidence. PW-3, who otherwise is a
chance witness, also should not have been relied
E
upon.

(x) The prosecution having failed to establish
_.,,, existence of any strong motive on the part of the
appellants to join their hands together in committing
the offence, the High Court should have recorded F
a judgment of acquittal.

(xi) In any event, the appellants having no intention to
cause death of the deceased, at best, a case under
Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code has G
1, been made out.

10. Mr. R. Nedumaran, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State, however, supported the impugned judgment.

11. PW-1 Vishwanathan, in his deposition, stated in details H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A as to how all the accused persons came to the grocery shop
of the deceased and vandalized the same.

The shop of the PW-1 was adjacent to the shop of the
deceased. According to him, the appellants were armed with
casuarina sticks. He furthermore stated that it was at the
8
instance of Accused No. 1 Purushothaman, Accused No. 4
Mohan struck a blow on the right side of the head of the
deceased as a result whereof he fell down whereafter Accused
No. 2 Ravi assaulted him on the left side of the head and
Accused No. 5 Padmanal:>an assaulted him on his face near
C the right eye.

The evidence of PW-1 is sufficiently corroborated by PW-
2 Chandra and PW-3 Raman.

D 12. It is also not in dispute that the deceased at the earliest
possible opportunity was taken to the Omalur Government
Hospital and on being referred to the Government Hospital, t

Salem was taken there. As the Chief Medical Officer of the •
Government Hospital, Salem was not available, for better
medical treatment, the deGeased was taken to the Shanmuga
E
Nursing Home.

13. PW-7 Dr. Kumudha Rani; who was an Assistant
Surgeon in the Omalur Government Hospital found the following
injuries on the person of the deceased:
F
"1. A lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm x % cm over right
parietal bone near midline.

2. A lacerated wound 8 cm x 1 cm x % cm over left parietal
bone near midline.
G
3. Contusion 4 cm x ~I cm right upper eye lid."

14. Dr. G. Sundararnurthy, PW-8 who was working at
Government Hospital, Sale!m admittedly treated the deceased
H as an in patient. The deceased was admitted in the Shanmugha
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 261
POLICE, TAMIL NADU [S.B. SINHA, J.]

t- Nursing Home at about 6.35 p.m. A
f

PW-13 V. Shanmugham, Inspector of Police of
Theevattippatti Police Station received a telephonic message
from the Nursing Home. He arrived at the Nursing Home at
about 7 O'Clock, recorded the statement of Viswanathan,.
B
brother-in-law of the peceased (PW-1 ). The First Information
Report was registered by him after coming back to the police
station. at abouf8.30 p.m. He visited the place of occurrence
... on the next day. By that time, as noticed hereinbefore, the
deceased breathed his last.
c
15. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was
conducted by PW-11 Dr. Vallinayagam. The injuries found by
him on the person of the deceased are as under:

"1. A lacerated wound on the right side of the crown of the D
head.
..+ 2. A lacerated wound on the left side of the crown of the
head.

3. Contusion over the right eye brow. E
4. Further, on the crown of the head, a lacerated wound
on the right side.

5. Contusion on the back side of the head."
F
PW-11 also recorded the manner in which the incident had
taken place as also the weapons of attack. Indisputably, the
casuarina sticks were recovered on the basis of the statements
of the appellants. Both the courts below have placed implicit
reliance on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. We have been G
;._ taken through their depositions and we do not find any reason
to differ therewith.

16. PWs 1 and 2 may be closely related to the deceased
but the same, in our opinion, by itself, would not be a ground
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A for rejecting their testimonies outright. PW-3 was not related
to the deceased. The injuries suffered by the deceased have
-+ .
been proved. The medical evidences in no uncertain terms
corroborate the depositions of the eye-witnesses. The injuries
on the person of the deceased were found to have been inflicted
B by the cppellants and the appellants alone. The fact that the
shop of the deceased was located near the residential colony
of the members of the Adi Dravida Community is not in dispute.
It is also not in dispute lthat they held a function on the Republic
Day. The fact that electrical connection was taken from the shop
c premises of the deceased wherefor a case for theft of electrical
energy was recorded has been established.

The eye-witnesses account clearly proved the motive on
the part of the accused to commit the said offence. The
deceased being a member of the Naidu Community was
D reprimanded by his community member as he had tried to do
something for the members of the other community.
'•
Appellants along with others were members of an unlawful
assembly. They came to the shop of the deceased with deadly
E weapons. It was witnessed, apart from PWs 1 and 2 also, by
PW-3 who was owner of a tailoring shop which was situated
by the side of the shop of the deceased. PW-3 was a witness
to both part of the occurrence, viz., the action on the part of the
accused to come to the shop of the deceased and threatening
him in the night of 29.03.1997 and their visit on the following
F
morning and assaulting the deceased ultimately resulting in his
death. The occurrence might have taken place on Sunday but
there is nothing to show that the shops were closed.
-~
17. Submission of Mr. Kanagraj that PW-1 could not have
G seen the occurrence from a distance of 10 feet cannot be
accepted. The occurrence has taken place inside a shop and
not inside a residential house. The shop being open, we find
no reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW-1 to state in
details in regard to the manner in which the occurrence had
H taken place.
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 263
POLICE, TAMIL NADU (S.B. SINHA, J.]

t Presence of PWs 2 and 3 at the place of occurrence has A
also been found to be acceptable by the courts below.

18. Some delay might have been caused in lodging of the
First Information Report, but, the same has sufficiently been
explained. It is true that PW-7 in his evidence stated that he
B
had sent the information to the police station but he also
admitted that the same was not recorded in the accident
register. PW-7 was examined on 22.04.2003., i.e., after a
period of more than six years from the date of the incident. At
the time of his deposition, he was working in the ESI Hospital,
Salem as Medical Officer. The Inspector of Police PW-13 in c
his evidence categorically stated that he received the telephonic
message at about 6 O'Clock in the evening from the Nursing
Home and he reached there at about 7 O'Clock. We do not
find any reason to disbelieve the said evidence brought on
record by the prosecution. D

-
.
-}

19. No doubt lodging of a First Information Report at the
earliest possible opportunity is desirable. But, the courts cannot
also ignore the ground realities that the relatives of the
deceased would give priority to the treatment of a severely E
injured person. All attempts would first be made to save his life.
The action on the part of the prosecution witnesses, in our
~ considered opinion, in giving priority to the treatment to the
injured was wholly justifiable.

20. PW-4 Sekaran, son of the deceased in his deposition, F
who has not been cross-examined, categorically stated that he
had been working in a company known as Power Held
Corporation of India at K.R. Thoppur. He was informed about
the incident by his maternal aunt Chandra (PW-2) when she
came in a car and took him to the Shanmugha Nursing Home G
where the deceased was admitted in its Intensive Care Unit.
The fact that he had to be brought to the Nursing Home by PWs
is again a pointer to the fact that they were busy in not only
making arrangements for proper medical treatment of the
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A deceased but also intimating the son of the deceased (PW-4) -4
1

and bringing him to the hospital at the earliest possible
opportunity. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the delay in
lodging the First Information Report has sufficiently been
explained.
8 21. Submission of Mr. Kanagraj that PWs 2 and 3 are
chance witnesses again cannot be accepted. PW-3, as noticed
hereinbefore, is owner of a tailoring shop which is situated by
the side of the shop belonging to the deceased. The place of
occurrence is a small village. PW-2's presence, therefore, at
c the place of occurrence, cannot be doubted or disputed.

22. It is also idle to contend that the appellants had no
motive to kill the deceased. Prosecution witnesses in their
depositions clearly broufJht out the motive on the part of the
D accused to commit the crime.
~

23. Submission of Mr. Kanagraj that the appellants had •
committed an offence only under Section 304, Part II of the
Indian Penal Code cannot be accepted for more than one
reason. Appellants had formed an unlawful assembly. They
E came to the place of occurrence with deadly weapons. The
overt acts attributed to them resulted in causing serious injuries
on +fie head of the deceased. They not only were grievous in
nature, the skull of the deceased was also found fractured. The
intensity of the assault on the person of the deceased by the
F appellants, therefore, can be well imagined. When three injuries
have been caused on vital parts of the body, we have no doubt
in our mind that the appellants knew that the said injuries were
likely to cause death or cause such bodily injury which may
re!:iult in death.
...
G
24. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465]
Bose, J. laid down the legal principle in this behalf in the
following terms:

"In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury
H
•
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 265
POLICE, TAMIL NADU [S.B. SINHA, J.]
found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily A
~ ,,_ proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there
was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot,
and whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury
found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary
to enquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether B
the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out, or whether
he intended to penetrate the liver or the kidneys or the
heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of
anatomy could never be convict, for, if he does not know
~- that there is a heart or a kidney or bowels, he cannot be c
said to have intended to injure them. Of course, that is not
the kind of enquiry. It is broad-based and simple and based
on commonsense; the kind of enquiry that 'twelve good
men and true' could readily appreciate and understand."

25. The aforementioned dicta has been followed by this D
Court in a large number of decisions including Kesar Singh &
--> Anr. v. State of Haryana [2008 (6) SCALE 433]. In view of the
.,,
_, well-settled legal position, we need not refer to all the decisions
of this Court operating in the field, but, we may notice Kesar
Singh (supra). E

Therein this Court considered a large number of decisions
and stated the law in the following terms:

"To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following
F
facts before it can bring a case under Section 300, "3rdly":

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

Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These G
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
H
266 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved
to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, ,f .,

Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just
described made up of the three elements set out above
is sufficient to cause di::iath in the ordinary course of nature.
B
This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential
and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.

Once these four elements are established by the
prosecution (and, indisputably, the burden is on the
c prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under
!"'

Section 300, "3rdly". It does not matter that there was no
intention to cause death. 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
D (not that there is any real distinction 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 is actually found to be •
<..
proved, the rest of th•3 enquiry is purely objective and the
E only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective
inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of
,,
nature to cause death ...

In Kesar Singh (supra), this Court noticed the deviation
from Virsa Singh tests beginning from State of Andhra
F
Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr, [(1976) 4 SCC
382], to hold:

"Unfortunate1y, the propositions in Virsa Singh have not
been rigidly followed subsequently. For example, in State
G of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr,
[(1976) 4 sec 382], the enquiry became one of whether
the accused intended to cause the ultimate internal injury
that led to death i.e. the Court inferred, from the
surrounding facts and circumstances in that case that the
H accused had intended to cause the hemorrhage etc that
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 267
POLICE, TAMIL NADU [S.S. SINHA, J.]
ultimately led to death." A
~· ·t-
This Court furthermore noticed the importance of the term
"fight" used in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code to opine:

"The word "fight" is used to convey something more than
a verbal quarrel. It postulates a bilateral transaction in which 8
blows are exchanged. In order to constitute a fight, it is
necessary that blows should be exchanged even if they all
do not find their target. [Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Vol 2, page
1364, Footnote 4] No material in this regard has been
brought on record." c
[See also Mohd. Asif v. State of Uttarancha/ JT 2009 (4)
SC 1 and Bala Baine Unga Raju v. State of A.P., 2009 (7)
SCALE 73]

26. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any D

~
merit in these appeals. They are dismissed accordingly.

' K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.

).