In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, the Supreme Court …

Question

In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, the Supreme Court laid down a four-step test to apply Section 300 'Thirdly'. Which of the following is NOT one of those steps?

Accepted Answer

B. It was proved that the accused had a prior criminal record or pattern of similar offences

1. The four-step Virsa Singh test for Section 300 thirdly is: (i) the bodily injury was present; (ii) the nature of the injury was proved (objective fact); (iii) the injury was INTENDED by the accused (subjective, can be inferred); (iv) the injury was SUFFICIENT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH (objective expert evidence).
2. Prior criminal record is NOT part of the Virsa Singh test (and is generally inadmissible under Section 54 IEA as character evidence).
3. Vasanth Singh v. State of Bihar (1982) reaffirmed the test.
4. The test isolates intent + sufficiency, sidestepping a need to prove knowledge separately.
5. Hence option D is the correct exception.
_Source: Indian Penal Code 1860 / Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 / Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Bare Acts, indiacode.nic.in) — Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465_

Answer

The bodily injury was actually present (objective fact, not denied by accused)

Answer

It was proved that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death

Answer

The nature of the injury was proved by medical or other forensic evidence