Holding

The injuries inflicted were intentional and sufficient to satisfy the "thirdly" requirement of Section 300 IPC, therefore the offence constitutes murder and the conviction under Section 302 IPC is upheld.

Summary

The accused five men were convicted by the Sessions Court for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and related offences after violently assaulting the deceased Balveer Singh, causing multiple injuries to vital organs and ultimately his death. The High Court reduced the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 304 Part II, reasoning that the injuries were to non‑vital parts and that the accused had taken the victim to a doctor, indicating no intention to kill. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the facts satisfied the "thirdly" clause of Sec. 300 IPC, focusing on the presence of bodily injury, its nature, and the intention to inflict that injury. Relying on the precedent set in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held that the injuries to the lung, liver and ribs were intentional and sufficient to cause death, making the "thirdly" element complete irrespective of any intent to kill. Consequently, the Court restored the Sessions Court’s murder conviction, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the accused to surrender for execution of the original sentence.

Issues considered

The applicability of the "thirdly" clause of Section 300 IPC to the facts of the case
Whether the injuries inflicted were intentional and sufficient to constitute murder under Section 300
Whether any exception to Section 300 IPC (e.g., lack of intention to kill) could reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 149, s. 201, s. 299, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304(Part II), s. 323, s. 329, s. 364

Subjects

murderculpable homicideSection 300 IPCthirdly clauseintentional injuryvital organ injuryappellate jurisdictionIndian Penal Code

Judgment

954 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 11 S.C.R. 954 [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A VINOD KUMAR
v.
AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2021)
B NOVEMBER 30, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.300 thirdly – Prosecution case was that
respondent 1 to 5-accused were guilty of killing victim-deceased –
Trial court convicted respondents-accused inter alia for offence
C
punishable u/ss.302/149 – High Court altered conviction u/s.302
to one u/s.304 Part II holding that the injuries caused to deceased
were on non-vital parts of the body and, therefore, there was no
intention on part of accused to kill the deceased – High Court
further observed that the accused took deceased to a doctor which
D showed that there was no intention on their part to kill the deceased
– Appeal by informant (brother of victim) – Held: The factum of
bodily injuries and its nature was duly established – Apart from the
injuries on non-vital parts, there were fractured ribs on the right
side and the right lung was ruptured – Even the wind pipe and food
pipe were ruptured – There was an injury to liver – The cause of
E
death as certified by the medical board was excessive bleeding due
to injuries on vital parts like right lung as well as liver and the
resultant shock – Deposition of eye witness that one of the accused
held deceased who was lying flat on the ground and at least three
accused persons assaulted him – Therefore, injuries on the chest
F which resulted into fracture of five ribs and rupture of right lung
cannot be said to be accidental or unintentional – Therefore, even
the third element in s.300 was established –Once prosecution
established existence of three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly”
in s. 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the part
of the accused to cause death – Even the knowledge that an act of
G
that kind is likely to cause death is not necessary to attract “thirdly”
– Clause “thirdly” of s.300 applies in this case – High Court
committed gross error in applying s.304 Part II – Judgment of trial
court is restored.

H
954
VINOD KUMAR v. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS. 955

Allowing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1. In this case, none of the exceptions to Section
300 are applicable. The issue which is required to be examined
is whether the case will be covered by “thirdly” in Section 300.
The case of Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab has stood the test
of time. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said decision: “...the B
prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a
case under S. 300, “Thirdly”; first, it must establish, quite objectively,
that a bodily injury is present; secondly, the nature of the injury
must be proved; these 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 C
unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.”
[Para 16][964-B-F]
Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 4654
: [1958] SCR 1495 – relied on.
D
1.2 The first two elements laid down in paragraph 12 have
been established in this case as the factum of bodily injuries and
its nature have been duly established. The question is whether
the third element of intention to inflict the particular bodily injuries
was present. As narrated by PW2, he along with deceased were
forcibly taken in a vehicle. When the vehicle reached unmetalled E
road, it was stopped. Thereafter, the accused banged the deceased
flat on the ground. While the accused no.1 was holding the
deceased, accused nos.4 and 5 started assaulting deceased. There
was no scope for the deceased to resist. Thereafter, the accused
started assaulting him. Apart from the injuries on non-vital parts, F
there was a fracture of 6th to 10th ribs on the right side and the
right lung was ruptured. Even the wind pipe and food pipe were
ruptured. There was an injury to liver. The cause of death as
certified by the Board was excessive bleeding due to injuries on
vital parts like right lung as well as liver and the resultant shock.
Therefore, it is impossible to say that the injuries on the chest G
which resulted into fracture of 5 ribs and rupture of right lung
were accidental or unintentional. Therefore, even the third
element was established. Once the prosecution establishes the
existence of the three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in
Section 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A the part of the accused to cause death. The absence of intention
to kill is not relevant in the facts of the case, the injuries found by
PW3 on the face of the deceased which were not the ante mortem
injuries establish that before throwing the body of the deceased
in a canal, his face was completely smashed by the accused. The
fact that accused after killing deceased went to a common relative
B
will not be of any assistance to the accused. The view taken by
High Court that the offence under Section 300 was not made out
is not even a possible view which could have been taken on the
basis of the evidence on record. The judgment and order of the
Sessions Court will have to be restored. [Paras 17, 18, 20,
C 21][965-D-H; 966-A, B, E-G]
Case Law Reference
[1958] SCR 1495 relied on. Para 16
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
D 1519 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 886
of 2011.
Manish K. Bishnoi, Ms. Pallavii Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
E
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati,
Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Manvendra Singh Rathore, Dashrath Singh
Rathore, Aditya Chauhan, Arpit Parkash, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECTS

G 1. The respondent nos.1 to 5 are the accused who were prosecuted
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 364, 302/149, 201 and
323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2. The Sessions Court convicted the respondent nos.1 to 5 (the
accused) for all the aforesaid offences. They were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read
H
VINOD KUMAR v. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS. 957
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

with 149 of IPC. For the other offences, lesser punishments were A
imposed. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. For the
offence punishable under Sections 302, the accused were directed to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. They were also directed to pay fine for
other offences. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was directed
to be paid to the widow of the deceased.
B
3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the Sessions
Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of
Rajasthan. By the impugned Judgment and order dated 18th July 2016,
while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 364, 201 and 329/149 of IPC, the conviction
of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC C
was brought down to the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II
of IPC and the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 8 years. The fine amount was not disturbed.
4. The appellant, who is the first informant, has taken an exception
to the impugned Judgment and order of the High Court. He is the brother D
of a victim of the offence Vijay Singh (PW1). The allegation against the
accused is also of committing murder of Balveer Singh. Vijay Singh
(PW1) was injured in the incident.
5. From the impugned Judgment and order, it appears that the
learned counsel for the accused while arguing the appeal challenged E
only the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC. The learned counsel appearing for accused without
challenging the incident and participation of the accused in the incident,
made a submission before the High Court that the offence established
against the accused was the one punishable under Section 304 Part II of F
IPC. The accused did not challenge the conviction for the other offences.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has taken us through the impugned Judgment and order of the
High Court. His submission is that the injuries on the person of the G
deceased were on vital parts of his body. He pointed out that 6 th to
10th ribs of the deceased were found to be fractured and right lung was
ruptured. Moreover, there was an injury to his liver. He pointed out the
opinion of the medical board that injuries to the vital parts like right lung
and liver led to excessive bleeding and shock, which was the cause of
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A death. He submitted that the High Court proceeded on erroneous footing
that there were no injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased.
He further submitted that none of the exceptions to Section 300 of IPC
were applicable. He also pointed out that before throwing the body of
the deceased into a canal, his face was completely smashed by the
accused. He submitted that “thirdly” in Section 300 of IPC was applicable.
B
Dr. Manish Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State
of Rajasthan, supported the appellant.
7. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, the learned counsel representing
the accused pointed out that there is no evidence on record to show that
objects like iron rod and sticks were used to assault the deceased as
C even PW1 Vijay Singh has not deposed to that effect in his examination-
in-chief. He submitted that no weapons were used to attack the deceased.
He submitted that the fact that there was no intention on the part of the
accused to kill deceased Balveer Singh is clear from the fact that the
accused took Balveer Singh to a doctor. Moreover, the accused took
D PW1 Vijay Singh to a common relative and they had tea in the house of
the common relative. He would, therefore, submit that correct view has
been taken by the High Court that the offence punishable under Section
302 of culpable homicide amounting to murder was not made out.
8. Before we deal with the submissions, we may note here that
E when the petition was heard on 11th November 2021, we found that
before the High Court, the accused had not challenged their participation
in the incident and the submissions were confined to bringing down the
offence punishable under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II. Therefore,
we made a query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
accused to ascertain whether the respondents-accused want to argue
F on merits for acquittal. On 16th November 2021, the learned counsel Gp.
Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, on instructions, stated that the accused wanted
to take the same stand which was urged before the High Court.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

G 9. Though the incident has been admitted by the accused, for the
sake of completion, we are referring to the prosecution case which can
be gathered from the deposition of Vijay Singh (PW1), the injured witness.
On 5th October 2005, PW1 along with deceased Balveer Singh had been
to Hanumangarh. In the evening, they took a train for returning to their
village Sherekan. While they were walking towards their house from
H the railway station, they found that the accused nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were
VINOD KUMAR v. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS. 959
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

standing near the railway crossing and they started walking with the A
deceased Balveer Singh and PW1. On the way, a Tata Sumo vehicle
was parked in which the accused no.4 was sitting. The accused no.4
pulled hair of Vijay Singh and the accused no.5 pushed him into the
vehicle. The accused nos.1 to 3 pushed Balveer Singh into the said
vehicle. Thereafter, the vehicle proceeded towards Hanumangarh. The
B
accused nos. 2 and 3 had put hands on the mouth of Balveer Singh and
PW1 respectively. In the vehicle, the accused nos.4 and 5 started beating
the deceased and PW1. The vehicle was taken to Hanumangarh. The
vehicle reached near Saim nullah. Thereafter, the vehicle was taken on
an unmetalled road and was stopped in an open field. After the vehicle
stopped, the accused banged Balveer Singh flat on the ground and they C
started assaulting Balveer Singh. The accused no.1 had put hand on the
mouth of PW1 and the accused no.5 started assaulting him. PW1 begged
before the accused to spare him. They continued to beat Balveer Singh.
When the accused noticed a light of a vehicle approaching the place,
they put both the deceased as well as PW1 in the vehicle. By that time,
D
Balveer Singh had become unconscious. They took Balveer Singh to the
house of a doctor at Salemgarh Masani. After noticing serious condition
of deceased Balveer Singh, the doctor advised that Balveer Singh should
be taken to Hanumangarh. Thereafter, the vehicle was taken to residence
of uncle of the accused no.4 where the tank of the vehicle was filledin.
The accused thereafter took the vehicle near a canal and stopped the E
vehicle as the wheel got punctured. By that time, Balveer Singh had
died. The accused took out the body of Balveer Singh from the vehicle
and by using pieces of bricks lying nearby, they smashed the face of
body so that it could not be identified. Thereafter, they threw the body of
the deceased to the canal and the clothes were also thrown into the
F
canal by attaching bricks to it. The accused moved with PW1to the
residence of one Kanwar Sain who was related to the parties. As the
said relative was not aware about the incident, he offered tea to them.
After the accused disclosed the incident, the said relative asked them to
leave his house.
10. The accused had threatened PW1 not to disclose the incident G
to any one. They told him that if he discloses the incident, he would
suffer the same fate which was suffered by the deceased. When they
left the place of Kanwar Sain, the accused nos.1 to 3 were in the vehicle.
On the way, the accused nos.2 and 3 boarded a bus and the accused
no.1 took PW1 to Hanumangarh Town Police Station. The police H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A admitted PW1 to hospital. Thereafter, the police prepared a report and
signatures of PW1 were taken.
11. It is necessary to note the injuries found on the body of the
deceased. Dr. Jaspal Badappa, PW3 deposed that there was a medical
board comprising of him and Dr. Brijesh Gaur, who was working as a
B medical officer in a Government Hospital in Hanumangarh town. Both
of them conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. It is necessary
to reproduce the relevant part of the deposition of PW3 Dr. Jaspal
Badappa. He described the injuries on the person of the deceased as
under:
C “1. There were multiple blue colour bruise marks over the lower
part of right hip to the back and front side of right thigh and 3/4th
part of the back and side portion of the right leg.
2. There were multiple blue colour bruise marks over the lower
part of left hip to the back and front side of left thigh and 3/4th
D part of the back and inner side portion of the left leg and skin was
also ruptured.
3. There were multiple blue colour bruise marks on the front side
of left thigh and skin, was also ruptured on many parts.
4. There were multiple blue colour bruise marks at the 1/2th lower
E part of the chest and also on the back side along with waist.
5. There was a wounded cut which crosses through sternal notch
of both sides of the neck to mastoid part of the back side of ear.
The muscles of neck, food pipe and lungs were also ruptured.
Both the arteries, veins and ears and muscles were ruptured and
F on the parts of temporal bone, frontal bone and forehead, skin
were ruptured to the extent of visibility of bones. The bones of
upper and lower jaw, nose and face were visible as it was not
covered by skin. The back side of neck is attached with one piece
of skin and cervical bones of neck are clearly visible.
G 6. Mashed wound admeasuring 2 X 1 inch and bones are visible
on the part of left palm.
7. Mashed wound admeasuring 1.1/2 X 1/2 inch X deep to the
muscles, inner part bones are visible on the part of left palm.
8. Mashed wound admeasuring 1 X 1/4 inch X deep wound to the
H side portion of the left leg.
VINOD KUMAR v. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS. 961
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

9. There were multiple marks of scar over dorsal part of left A
hand.
During the internal examination of head and throat there
was hair on the head, ruptured wound running from sternal notch
on both sides of neck were visible and ruptured veins, arteries,
windpipe, food pipe, and muscles going from front and back side B
along with the mastoid part of the back side of ear where bone
can be seen due to flayed skin. The frontal bone, temporal bone,
face, upper jaw, nose bone and mandible bone of jaw are clearly
visible. The right eye was popped out whereas left eye was closed.
The cervical bones of neck are clearly visible and the back side
of neck is attached with a piece of skin. The brain and its C
membrane are in healthy state.
During the examination of chest, hematoma was found in
the muscles of injured part and sixth to tenth bone from the right
side were found to be fractured and multiple of right lung with its
membrane was also ruptured. The wind pipe and food pipe were D
ruptured and both sides of chambers of heart were empty.
Blood clotting was found during the examination of stomach.
There was rupture mark in the stomach and liver admeasuring 1/
2 inch X 1/2 inch X 1/2 inch.
During the examination of genitals, testicles were in swollen E
condition and penis was not injured.
During the examination, there was no skin over the face of
deceased as bones were visible and food pipe and wind pipe were
ruptured.”
(underlines added) F
12. He deposed that according to the Board, the cause of death
was the infliction of injuries on the vital parts like lungs and liver which
resulted into excessive bleeding and shock. The witness stated that injuries
at Item no. 5 were not ante mortem.
13. PW3 Dr.Jaspal Badappa was cross-examined by the advocate G
for the accused. A suggestion was put to him that the injuries at Item
nos.1 to 4 may have been caused by collusion with a vehicle. He denied
the correctness of the said suggestion. He stated that the fracture the
ribs does result into death of a person if any damage is caused to internal
organs. H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 14. Though, the PW1 has not specifically stated that the injuries
on the deceased were inflicted by using iron rod or stick, there is no
dispute that the accused have caused the injuries.
15. Now the only question to be decided is whether the offence
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out. In the
B impugned Judgment and order, the High Court has proceeded on the
footing that the injuries caused to the deceased were on non-vital parts
of the body and therefore, there was no intention on the part of the
accused to kill the deceased. The High Court further observed that the
accused took deceased to a doctor also shows that there was no intention
on the part of the accused to kill the deceased.
C
16. The Offence of culpable homicide is defined under Section
299 of IPC. Culpable homicide is the genus and the offence of murder
as defined under Section 300 of IPC is its species.
Sections 299 and 300 of IPC reads thus :-
D “299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death by
doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.”
E 300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused
is done with the intention of causing death, or—
Secondly —If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death
F of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
Thirdly —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in-flicted
is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
Fourthly —If the person committing the act knows that it
G 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 aforesaid.”
Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—
H Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived
VINOD KUMAR v. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS. 963
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, A
causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes
the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:—
First.—That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily
provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to B
any person.
Secondly.—That the provocation is not given by anything
done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of the powers of such public servant.
C
Thirdly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done
in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and
sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder
is a question of fact. D
Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in
the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person
or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes
the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right
of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of
E
doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such
defence.
Exception 3.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,
being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the
advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him
F
by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith,
believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his
duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person
whose death is caused.
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon G
a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A Exception 5.—Culpable homicide is not murder when the person
whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years,
suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.”
(underline supplied)
Now, the question is whether in the present case, the offence of
B culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out. Obviously in
this case, none of the exceptions to Section 300 are applicable. The
issue which is required to be examined is whether the case will be covered
by “thirdly” in Section 300. On this aspect, we will make a reference to
a decision of this Court in the case of Virsa Singh v. The State of
C Punjab1 which has stood the test of time.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said decision which are locus
classicus read thus: -
“12. To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following
facts before it can bring a case under S. 300, ”Thirdly”;
D
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury
is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These
are purely objective investigations.
E 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
F enquiry proceeds further and,
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 death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the
enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do
G with the intention of the offender.
13. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution
(and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the
offence is murder under S. 300, ”Thirdly. It does not matter that

1
H AIR 1958 SC 465 = 1958 SCR 1495
VINOD KUMAR v. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS. 965
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that A
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 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
B
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 nature and claim that they are not guilty of C
murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the
consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or
reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise
unintentional.”
(underline supplied) D
17. The first two elements laid down in paragraph 12 have been
established in this case as the factum of bodily injuries and its nature
have been duly established. The question is whether the third element of
intention to inflict the particular bodily injuries was present. As narrated
by PW2, he along with deceased Balveer Singh were forcibly taken in a E
vehicle. When the vehicle reached unmetalled road, it was stopped.
Thereafter, the accused banged deceased Balveer Singh flat on the
ground. While the accused no.1 was holding Balveer Singh, the accused
nos.4 and 5 started assaulting deceased Balveer Singh. There was no
scope for Balveer Singh to resist. Thus, he was taken out of the vehicle
and was forced to lie down on the ground. Thereafter, the accused started F
assaulting him. Apart from the injuries on non-vital parts, there was a
fracture of 6th to 10th ribs on the right side and the right lung was ruptured.
Even the wind pipe and food pipe were ruptured. There was an injury to
liver. The cause of death as certified by the Board was excessive bleeding
due to injuries on vital parts like right lung as well as liver and the resultant G
shock. Going by the version of PW2, one of the accused held deceased
Balveer Singh who was lying flat on the ground and at least three accused
persons assaulted him. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the injuries
on the chest which resulted into fracture of 5 ribs and rupture of right
lung were accidental or un-intentional. Therefore, even the third element
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A was established. From the evidence of PW3 Dr. Jaspal Badappa, it can
be gathered that the injuries on the vital parts like right lung and liver
which resulted into bleeding and shock were sufficient to cause the death
in the ordinary cause of nature.
18. Once the prosecution establishes the existence of the three
B ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300, it is irrelevant
whether there was an intention on the part of the accused to cause
death. As held by this Court in the case of Virsa Singh (supra), it does
not matter that there was no intention even to cause the injury of a kind
that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Even the
knowledge that an act of that kind is likely to cause death is not necessary
C to attract “thirdly”. Hence, it follows that clause “thirdly” of Section 300
will apply in this case.
19. We are constrained to observe that the High Court adopted
an easy method of accepting the only contention canvassed that the
offence made out was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As
D noticed earlier, the High Court ignored that there were injuries on the
vital parts of the body of the deceased. The High Court did not notice
that all the elements of “thirdly” in Section 300 were established.
20. It was argued that the accused took the deceased to a doctor
which shows the absence of intention to kill him. Apart from the fact
E that for the reasons recorded above, the absence of intention to kill is not
relevant in the facts of the case, the injuries found by PW3 on the face
of the deceased which were not the ante mortem injuries establish that
before throwing the body of the deceased in a canal, his face was
completely smashed by the accused. The fact that accused after killing
F deceased Balveer Singh went to a common relative will not be of any
assistance to the accused.
21. The view taken by High Court in the impugned Judgment and
order that the offence under Section 300 was not made out is not even a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence
G on record. As we are of the view that the High Court has committed a
gross error by applying Section 304 Part II of IPC, the Judgment and
order of the High Court will have to be set aside and the judgment and
order of the Sessions Court will have to be restored.
22. We hold that the learned Additional District and Session Judge
was right in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under
H
VINOD KUMAR v. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS. 967
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Section 302/149 of IPC. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting A
aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 18 th July 2016.
We restore the Judgment and order dated 26th September 2011 in Session
Case No.04/2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Session
Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. Therefore, the
substantive sentence and the fine imposed by the Court of Sessions for
B
the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC is restored.
23. We direct the accused to surrender before the Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today. If they fail to surrender within
six weeks from today, action be taken by the Trial Court for arresting
them in accordance with law. They shall undergo remaining period of
sentence in terms of the judgment of the Trial Court dated 26th September C
2011.

Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H