In Virsa Singh v State of Punjab (1958), the Supreme Court interpreted s300 'thirdly' (intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death) to require
ASubjective intent to kill the victim by name
B(i) Intention to cause the particular bodily injury inflicted, (ii) that injury must be objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; no further mens rea required
CKnowledge of the victim's medical history
DApproval by a public officer
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: B. (i) Intention to cause the particular bodily injury inflicted, (ii) that injury must be objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; no further mens rea required
Virsa Singh sets the canonical test: subjective intent only as to the bodily injury, plus objective sufficiency. The accused need not have intended death — the injury's lethality alone (when intended) brings murder home.
Related questions
Section 357A CrPC, inserted by the 2009 Amendment Act, provides for:Section 161 IPC criminalises the taking of:Section 320 CrPC deals with compounding of offences. Compoundable offences:Section 122 IEA enacts marital privilege. It provides that:Section 60 IEA enacts the rule that oral evidence must be DIRECT, namely:Section 173 CrPC requires the officer in charge of a police station, on completion of inveSection 156 CrPC empowers the officer in charge of a police station to investigate a cogniSection 268 IPC defines 'public nuisance' as an act which causes: