Case Note & Summary
The appellant Sudershan Kumar, who had an illicit relationship with the deceased Maya Devi, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder by pouring acid on her. The trial court and the High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court, by special leave, limited the appeal to the question of the nature of the offence. The deceased, aged 19, lived with her mother Raj Kumari in an apartment on G.B. Road, Delhi. Both mother and daughter had taken to the profession of dancing. The accused wanted to marry Maya Devi, but she declined because he was already married to another woman. A few days before the occurrence, the accused took Maya Devi to his house for about 12 days. After returning her, he again asked her to marry him and threatened that if she refused, she would have a lingering death. On August 14, 1967, at about 6 A.M., when Maya Devi was lying on a cot with her one-month-old son and her mother in the same room, the accused came with a jug and bottle containing acid. He poured acid on Maya Devi, her son, and Raj Kumari, then fled. They were taken to City Clinic, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The FIR was lodged at 8.30 A.M. Maya Devi's statement was recorded on August 16, 1967. She was transferred to Safdarjang Hospital on August 21, 1967, and died there on August 26, 1967 at 2.50 A.M. Post-mortem examination showed extensive superficial ulceration of the body caused by a corrosive material, and death was due to toxaemia and septicaemia. The main legal issue was whether the offence of murder was made out under Section 300 thirdly IPC when the accused claimed he intended only to disfigure and not to kill, and whether death was due to negligence in treatment. The appellant contended that he did not intend to kill but only to disfigure, so the offence would fall under Section 304 Part I or Section 326 IPC, and that death was due to negligence. The State argued that the acid attack was pre-planned, caused extensive injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that medical evidence supported the murder charge. The Court relied on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab and held that under Section 300 thirdly IPC, the prosecution must prove four elements: bodily injury, nature of injury, intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, and that the injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Once these are established, it is murder even without intention to cause death or to cause an injury of that nature. The evidence showed the accused intended to cause injuries by throwing acid; Dr. V. K. Jain stated the injuries were sufficient collectively in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; Dr. K. S. Raj Kumar said burns covered 35 per cent of the body and were dangerous to life; and the post-mortem confirmed death from toxaemia and septicaemia due to extensive superficial ulceration from a corrosive material. The Court also rejected the negligence argument, finding no evidence that the deceased died because she did not receive proper treatment; the threat of a lingering death and the pre-planned nature of the act indicated intention to cause the injuries. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under that section.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 300 thirdly, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Essential Ingredients - The prosecution must establish four elements: bodily injury present; nature of injury proved; intention to inflict that particular bodily injury; and injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Once these four elements are established, the offence is murder under Section 300 thirdly IPC; absence of intention to cause death or to cause an injury of a kind sufficient to cause death is irrelevant. In the present case, the accused threw acid causing extensive burns, and medical evidence showed the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; therefore the conviction under Section 302 IPC was proper. Held that the appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide and Murder - Section 304 Part I and Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Distinction from Murder - The contention that acid was thrown only to disfigure and not to kill did not reduce the offence to Section 304 Part I or Section 326 because intention to cause a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature is enough for murder under Section 300 thirdly. The court rejected the argument that death was due to negligence, finding no evidence that the deceased died because she did not receive proper treatment; the act was pre-planned and intended to cause injuries sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Held that the appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's act of throwing acid causing death falls under Section 300 thirdly of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or under Section 304 Part I or Section 326, and whether death was due to negligence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with sentence of imprisonment for life.
Law Points
- For murder under Section 300 thirdly IPC
- prosecution must prove bodily injury
- nature of injury
- intention to inflict that particular bodily injury
- and injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death
- absence of intent to cause death is irrelevant
- acid burns covering 35% body are sufficient in ordinary course to cause death
- pre-planned acid attack threatening lingering death establishes intention
