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 90 IPC explains that consent given under fear or misconception is NOT consent. In Sec 300 'fourthly' criminalises an act done with knowledge that it is SO imminently dangerSection 96 to 106 (private defence) embeds a 'reasonable apprehension' standard. Which staUnder Indian criminal jurisprudence, 'mens rea' is sometimes excluded bySection 320 IPC enumerates 'grievous hurt' in eight categories. Which of the following is Section 107 IPC defines abetment as instigating, engaging in conspiracy to commit, or inteException 1 to Section 300 (grave and sudden provocation) is unavailable ifException 4 to Section 300 (sudden fight) reduces murder to culpable homicide not amountin