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. In short, the mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence is to be reduced to manslaughter. In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarly 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. The contention of the appellants was rejected by the learned Single Judge on two grounds, viz. The appellant was convicted by the first Court under s. The test to be applied is that of the effect of the provocation on a reasonable man, as was laid down by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Rex v.
The learned sessions judge, Ferozepur disbelieving the prosecution case acquitted the accused persons by a judgment and order dated 26. Respondent The State of Punjab and ors. The occurrence took place during the day time and there was no doubt about the identity of the accused. The first contention of Mr. Whether he knew of its seriousness, or intended serious consequences, is neither here nor there.
No evidence or explanation is given about why the appellant thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased with such force that it penetrated the bowels and three coils of the intestines came out of the wound and that digested food oozed out from cuts in three places. A corresponding rent was present on the shirt. Determining the intention becomes important in determining, whether the act is murder or not. It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be linked up with the seriousness of the injury. There is breach of this obligation if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all the circumstances of the case in exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person. This right, however, is available to a person who is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity of averting an impending danger which is not his own creation.
Under the first part it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present and under the second part it must be proved that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. State of Tamil Nadu 1984 , the court observed that: In all these cases, injury by a single blow was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was argued that the facts set out above do not disclose an offence of murder because the prosecution has not proved that there was an intention to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Lalit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants, their brother and father should have been held to have exercised their right of private defence having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by accused nos. Under the first part it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present and under the second part it must be proved that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The difference is 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.
Miguel appealed to the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago who dismissed his appeal. The appellants who are three in number with their father, Virsa Singh accused no. With due respect to the learned Judge he has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section requires. During the course of the said investigation, the said Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and at the time of the spot inspection he also collected the blood-stained earth which was found underneath the dead bodies of Virsa Singh and Kulwant Singh in the presence of local Panchas. The others were acquitted of the murder charge by the first court but were convicted under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
For cases to fall within Clause 3 , it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Once that intent is established and no other conclusion is reasonably possible in this case, and in any case it is a question of fact , the rest is a matter for objective determination from the medical and other evidence about the nature and seriousness of the injury. 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. What needs to be proved is that the accused had an intention to cause the same bodily injury found to be present on the person of deceased which was later found to be sufficient to cause death. What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
Such a principle is based on broad lines of common sense because if intention is considered to be of causing an injury which is sufficient to cause death; then any person could always plead that he never had an intention to cause such a injury and it would have been very difficult to prove him wrong. The depth could be easily traced upto 2 cms. When the appellants came to know of the order, they preferred an appeal against the same which was rejected by the order of Shri Gurdial Singh, Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner, dated December 16, 1964. 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. The brother did not like their intimacy. It was argued with much circumlocution that the facts set out above do not disclose an offence of murder because the prosecution has not proved that there was an intention to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The incident occurred about 8 p. State of Andhra Pradesh, three accused rushed to the deceased and began stabbing him indiscriminately with their three knives, while another accused tried to snatch the bag containing the cash. The law on the point is clear. On the Posterior lateral chest walls there was a diffused swelling 5 cm x 3½ cm containing dari clotted blood. On appeal being preferred by the accused persons, High Court. Your email address will not be published.
No aggression and provocation has been proved on the part of the victim. In such cases where the court does not award a fine along with a substantive sentence, Section 357 3 comes into play and it is open to the court to award compensation to the victim or his family. You may skip to the end and expand the entry. There was, thus, no fight from the side of the deceased. On the admitted facts of this case, we are unable to hold that a patently invalid order should be allowed to hold the field merely because a fatal defect therein was not pleaded by the appellants in the departmental proceedings.