It is a very well-known theory that an offense should please the principle of concurrence. In other words, this principle means, that just an act would not amount to an offense in a overall scenario unless there is an exception stated for the same. One of such examples can be seen through this case, wherein the court stressed on the importance of sections and interpretations for the same.

Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab is a case about the section 300  of the Indian Penal Code which talks about ‘Murder’ and section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which states the punishment for murder. In this case, the appellant and five other people were charged under section 149 i. e. every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object and 302 of the Code.

Facts:

Virsa Singh gave a severe hard blow to Khem Singh due to which  Khem Singh died, Virsa Singh stated that his intention was to cause physical harm, not Khem Singh's death. The Supreme Court brought him to justice by punishing Virsa Singh for the murder of Khem Singh.

The defendant Virsa Singh in a fight with Khem Singh injured him on July 13, 1955. The defendant formed a unlawful assembly of 5 people and stabbed Khem Singh in the stomach. As a result of this incident, Khem Singh's stomach was ruptured and three coils of intestines protruded from the wounds.Khem Singh died after the event at 5pm on July 14, 1995.The doctor said that the injuries were enough to kill Khem Singh under normal or ordinary circumstances. 

The sessions court ruled that Virsa Singh was responsible for his conduct and should be punished under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Virsa Singh was tried under five Sections 302/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court upheld the verdict, arguing that the third clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code was not the correct code in this case, as Virsa Singh had been proven to cause sufficient bodily harm to Khem Singh's death. The third clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code states that “Culpable Homicide is murder when the following two conditions are met, then the act leading to death was committed with intent to bring about death or with intent to cause bodily harm “.

Issues:

1. Whether third clause of the Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 fitted in this case?

2. Whether this case related to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

3. Whether there was any intension to kill Khem Singh?

4. Whether the death was accidental?

Arguments:

It has been argued that the above facts do not reveal the crime of murder but amount to manslaughter as there was no intention to kill Khem Singh. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 states that “Culpable Homicide is not amounting to murder, that it is not with the intention of killing a person, but of bodily harm”. 

 The arguments are that if it was done with intent to cause bodily harm rather than killing Khem Singh then the case should be guilty of Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not  murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.  It has been said that the intent required relates not only to physical harm but also to the cause of death, and the physical harm was sufficient to cause  Khem Singh's death.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court found that the arguments of the High Court and the Court of Sessions were disappointing. The court finds that in the case of intentional bodily harm to a person, death occurs in the normal course of the cause of the nature. Therefore the intent to kill that person and under the circumstances the third section of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 was unnecessary as the law and this case would fall under the first section of the section.

The third clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that “An act committed with intent to cause bodily harm shall not amount to murder but to Culpable Homicide not amouting to muder, which amounts to bodily harm rather than murder.” What not to Virsa Singh is true and Virsa Singh is responsible for the murder of Khem Singh.

The first sentence of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 states that "An act which causes the death of a person is intended to cause that person's death".

The Supreme Court has held, in my view, that these two clauses are separable and distinct. The first sentence is subjective for the offender:

It was first claimed that Khem Singh's body was injured by Virsa Singh and the nature of the injuries caused Khem Singh's death. These are mere facts which need not be discussed further as Khem Singh is dying as a result of a murder committed by Virsa Singh. "Intention to harm someone is enough to cause death." The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and punished him according to the law.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court rightly says that “if there is intent to harm, there must also be intent to kill”. 

The Court of Session and the High Court misinterpreted the third paragraph of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, ruling that Virsa Singh was responsible not for murder but for Culpable Homicide which did not constitute murder.

The medical records after observing Khem Singh's situation are so clear that the person was killed by someone with a dislocated bowel because something hit him so hard. The doctor said that after such severe injuries, Khem Singh died naturally because the blow was so severe that his body became unresponsive.I fully agree with the Supreme Court's decision that if a man claims intent to harm someone, his intent must be to kill them.There is no defense against murder, and no one can justify their guilt by claiming that their intent was not to kill but to cause bodily harm.

Virsa Singh is punished and justice is done with.

Conclusion

Justice was served by punishing Virsa Singh for his conduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was right in both its reasoning and its sanction. Virsa Singh wanted to kill Khem Singh so he blows him so hard his guts come out of his body.

Using of Third clause of section 300 of Indian penal code,1860 was incorrect in this case as the matter is of murder not just bodily injury, supreme court has justified that not every intension to give bodily injury is the only intension to give bodily injury sometimes it became murder and that’s what happen in this case.