http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SUDERSHAN KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF DELHI

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1974

BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2328            1975 SCR  (2) 520  1975 SCC  (3) 831

ACT: Penal Code-s. 300, Thirdly-scope of

HEADNOTE: When  the deceased declined to marry him the  appellant  who was  her paramour, threatened to kill her in a  manner  that she would have a lingering death.  He carried out the threat by  pouring acid over her when she was lying on a cot.   The deceased  who  had sustained extensive acid burns  over  her body  died a few days later.  The trial court convicted  him under  a. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to  imprisonment  for life.  The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. On  appeal  it  was  contended that  the  intention  of  the appellant was not to kill the deceased but only to disfigure her and, therefore, the offence would fall under s.    304 part  I  or under a. 326 I.P.C. and that death  was  due  to negligence. Dismissing the appeal, HELD: The appellant is guilty of offence punishable under s. 302 I.P.C. [525B] (1)  To  bring a case under cl. 3 of s. 300 the  prosecution must  establish : (i) bodily injury (ii) the nature  of  the injury  (iii)  intention to inflict that  particular  bodily injury and (iv) that it is sufficient to cause death in  the ordinary  course  of nature.  Once these four  elements  are established  by the prosecution the offence is murder  under s.  300 cl. 3 I.P.C.; it does not matter that there  was  no intention to cause death.  It does not matter that there was no  intention  even  to cause an injury of a  kind  that  is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of  nature. [522E-H] In the present case it is established beyond doubt that  the accused intended to cause injuries by throwing acid and  the injuries were actually caused on the person of the deceased. Virsa  Singh  v.  The State of Punjab  [1958]  S.C.R.  1495, followed. (2)  There  is no substance in the argument that  death  was due  to negligence.  There is no evidence that the  deceased died  because  she did not receive  proper  treatment.   The appellant threatened the deceased that if she did not  marry him  .she  would  have a lingering death.  The  act  of  the appellant in pouring acid on the body was a pre-planned  one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

and intended to cause the injuries which were sufficient  in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. [525B]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1971. Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment & Order dated  the 31st March, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Cri A. No. 38 of 1968. Bawa Gurcharan Singh and D. D. Sharma for the Appellant. Girish Chandra, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW J. When the special leave to appeal was granted, this Court  limited  it  to the question of  the  nature  of  the offence committed by the appellant (accused) in causing  the death of one Maya Devi by pouring acid on her body. 521 The prosecution "a was as follows.  Maya Devi, aged 19 years at  the  tame of her death was the daughter  of  Raj  Kumari (P.W.  1).   Both the mother and daughter had taken  to  the procession  of dancing and and used to live in an  apartment on G. B. Road, Delhi The accused had illicit connection with Maya  Devi and he often used to go to the residence  of  the deceased.   The  accused wanted to marry Maya Devi  but  she declined, as he was always married to another woman.  A  few days’  before the occurrence, the appellant took  Maya  Devi with  him  to his house and she stayed there  for  about  12 days.  Thereafter Maya Devi was brought back by the  accused to  her  mother’s  apartment.  On  that  occasion  also  the accused  asked Maya Devi to marry him but she refused.   The accused  then  threatened Maya Devi that if  she  would  not marry  him, she should either leave Delhi or he  would  kill her in such a manner that she would have a lingering  death. On August 14, 1967, at about 6 A.M., Maya Devi was lying  on her  cot with her son aged about one month.  Raj Kumari  was lying on another cot in the same room.  The accused came  to the  room holding a jug containing acid and a  bottle.   The accused  then poured the acid out of the jug on  Maya  Devi, her son and Raj Kumari.  They started crying and the accused threw the jug on the cot and placed the bottle on the ground and ran away.  Maya Devi was thereafter removed to the  city Clinic,  Asaf  Ali Road, New Delhi, a  private  hospital  at about  6.30  A.M. Raj Kumari and the son of Maya  Devi  were also taken to the hospital.  They were examined by Dr. V. K. Jain.  He found that Maya Devi had extensive injuries on her perlion.  The doctor found that there were a few streaks and patches  of acid burns on the right arm and forearm  of  Raj Kumari.   Acid  burns were also found on the  scalp  of  the child of Maya Devi. After  getting  first aid from the City Clinic,  Raj  Kumari went to Police Station Kamla Market and lodged the F.I.R. at 8.30 A.M. and  found   Maya  Devi  lying  in  a   precarious condition.  She was not in a  position    to    give     any statement.  On August 16, 1967, the Assistant  Sub-Inspector went  to  the clinic and with the permission  of  Dr.  Jain, recorded the statement of Maya Devi in which she stated that it  was the accused who had thrown acid on her,  her  mother and her son on the 14th morning. After August 16, 1967, Maya Devi started having toxaemia and infection of the bums.  It was, therefore, thought better to transfer  her  to  the  Special  Burns  Unit  in  Safdarjang Hospital.   Accordingly, on August 21, 1967, Maya  Devi  was admitted in the, Safdarjang Hospital at about 9 P.M. She was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

treated  in  that  Hospital by Dr. K. S.  Raj  Kumar,  House Surgeon  and Dr. (Miss) Nirmala Lakshmi Narain.   On  August 23. 1967.  Shri V. N. Chaturved, Sub-divisional  Magistrate, Hauz  Oazi,  went to Safdarjang Hospital  and  recorded  the statement  of Maya Devi.  In that statement also she  stated that the accused had thrown acid on her, her mother and                             522 son  on the morning of August 14, 1967.  Maya Devi  died  in Safdarjang  Hospital it 2.50 A.M. on August 26,  1967.   The usual inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent to  the mortuary.  Post-mortem examination of the dead  body was performed by Dr. S.  S. Kaushal on August 26, 1967 at  6 P.M. The  accused,  in his statement under s. 342,  Cr.P.C.  said that be never wanted to marry Maya Devi, that she was living with  him as his wife without any formal marriage,  that  he never  threatened Maya Devi that in case she did  not  marry him he would kill her and that he did not go to the house of Maya  Devi on the morning of August 14, 1967 with a jug  and bottle of acid. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced  him to imprisonment for life.  The conviction and sentence  were confirmed by the High Court. The  appellant’s  contention was that he did not  intend  to kill  Maya  Devi but intended only to  disfigure  her,  and, therefore, the offence would fall either under s. 304,  part I or under s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code.  The offence  of murder  is defined-under s. 300 of the I.P.C.  According  to clause 3 of that section, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the  intention of causing bodily injury to any Person and the bodily injury intended  to  be  inflicted is sufficient  in  the  ordinary course of nature to cause death. In Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab(1), this Court said:               "To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove               the following facts before it can bring a case               under s. 300 "rdly" :               First,  it must establish, quite  objectively,               that a bodily injury is present;               Secondly,  the  nature of the injury  must  be               proved;               These are purely objective investigations.               Thirdly, it must. be proved that there was  an               intention  to inflict that  particular  bodily               injury,  that  is  to say,  that  it  was  not               accidental  or  unintentional,  or  that  some               other kind of injury was intended.               Once  these  three elements are proved  to  be               present, the enquiry proceeds further and,               Fourthly it must be proved that the injury  of               the  type just described made up of the  three               elements, set out above is sufficient to cause               death in the ordinary course of nature.               (1)   [1958] S.C.R. 1495, at 1500-1501.               523               This  part of the enquiry is purely  objective               and inferential and has nothing to do with the               intention of the offender.               Once  these four elements are  established  by               the prosecution (and of course, the burden  is               on the prosecution, throughout the offence  is               murder  under  s.  300, 3rdly.   It  does  not               matter  that there was no intention  to  cause               death.   It does not matter that there was  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             intention  even to cause an injury of  a  kind               that  is  sufficient  to cause  death  in  the               ordinary course of nature. . .". In the present case, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt  that  the  accused  intended  to  cause  injuries  by throwing acid and injuries were caused on the person of Maya Devi.   Dr.  V. K. Jain, who treated Maya Devi in  the  City Clinic has stated in his evidence that the injuries suffered by Maya Devi were sufficient collectively,. in the  ordinary course  of nature, to cause death.  The opinion of Dr.  Jain is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. K. S. Raj Kumar.   He said that the burns were to the extent of 35 per cent of the body,  that if the bum exceeded 30 per cent, the same  would be dangerous to life and that the injuries on Maya Devi were dangerous  to  life.  Dr. S. S. Kaushal  who  conducted  the postmortem examination was of the view that death was due to toxaemia  and septi-semia from actions of toxine on  account of  the extensive superficial ulceration of the body  caused by  some corrosive material.  The evidence of these  doctors would  show that the injuries caused to Maya Devi were of  a dangerous  character.  The fact that Maya Devi lingered  for about  12  days would not show that the death  was  not  the direct  result of the act of the appellant in throwing  acid on  her.  The medical evidence is clear that 35 per cent  of the  surface of the body of Maya Devi was burnt as a  result of the injuries received by her.               "The  involvement of one-third to one-half  of               the superficial surface of the body is  likely               to   end   fatally".   (see   Modi’s   Medical               Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology, 17th  ed.,  p.               196).               In  Suppurative cases, death may  occur  after               five  or  six weeks or  even  longer(ibid,  p.               198).               Taylor  says that after the fourth day of  the               injury,  "the  chief  danger to  life  is  the               occurrence of sepsis in the burned areas"(1). It  was contended for the appellant that death of Maya  Devi was not the direct result of the injuries caused by the said burns  but was on account of some supervening  circumstances not resulting from the injuries and therefore, the appellant could  not  be  held guilty of murder.   He  relied  on  the evidence  of  Dr.  (Miss) Nirmala  Lakshmi  Narain  who  had stated, on her cross-examination, that the cause of death of Maya  Devi  was malaena and respiratory  failure.   Malaena, according to Dr. Jain is nothing but passing of old blood in the. (1)  See   "Taylor  Principles  and  Practice   of   Medical Jurisprudence". 12th ed., Vol. I, p. 331. 524 stools.   The evidence of Dr.S.S. Kaushal who performed  the post-mortem  examination of the dead body is  definite.   He says:  .lm15 "Death,  in  my opinion, was due to toxaemia  and  septisema from   absorption  of  toxms  from   extensive   superficial ulceration of the body caused by some corrosive material." As  already  stated, the evidence of Dr. Jain  and  Dr.  Raj Kumar  .is  also to the effect that the injuries  caused  on Maya  Devi were sufficient in the ordinary course of  nature to cause death.  The fact that Maya Devi developed  symptoms of   malaena   and  respiratory  ,failure  and   they   also contributed  to  her  death cannot in any  way  ,affect  our conclusion  that the injuries caused by the acid  bums  were the direct cause of her death.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

             "Since  Curling  first drew attention  to  the               occurrence  of  duodenal  ulcers  after  burns               numerous cases have been recorded both in vivo               and post-mortem after burns.  Petechiae of the               stomach  and  duodenum, often  with  erosions,               occasionally  acute ulcers, is a  more  common               post-mortem finding : the condition is due  to               anoxia from hypotension and stasis.  The large               bowel  may  also be  involved"  (see  Taylor’s               Principles    and    Practice    of    Medical               Jurisprudence, 12th ed.  Vol. I, p. 331).                Modi,  in  his  Medical  Jurisprudence,   has               stated that burns would cause               "Inflammation   of   serous   membrances   and               internal    organs,   such   as    meningitis,               peritonitis,   oedema   glottidis,   pleurisy,               bronchitis,   broncho-pheumonia,    pheumonia,               enteritis   and  periorating  ulcer   of   the               duodenum (17th ed. p. 197). Nor  is there any substance in the argument that  Maya  Devi was not given proper treatment and that her death was due to negligence  of  the doctors who treated her.   The  evidence shows that immediately after she received the injuries,  she was taken to the City clinic and there Dr. Jain treated her. As  her  condition did not imProve, she was removed  to  the Burns  Unit  of Safdarjang Hospital.  There is  no  evidence that  it  was because she did not receive  proper  treatment that the developed toxaemia and septi-semia-Explanation 2 to s. 299 is relevant in this context :               "Where  death is caused by bodily injury,  the               person who causes such bodily injury shall  be               deemed to have caused the death, although  by,               resorting  to  proper  remedies  and  skillful               treatment  the  death  might  have  been  pre-               vented". The  argument of counsel that the accused only  intended  to disfigure Maya Devi and not to cause her death overlooks the evidence  of Raj Kumari that the appellant  threatened  Maya Devi that if she 525 did not marry him, she will have a lingering death and  also the  evidence  furnished- by the dying declaration  of  Maya Devi that the appellant threatened to kill or disfigure  her with acid. The  act of the appellant in pouring acid on the body was  a preplanned one and he intended to cause the injury which  he actually  caused.  As the injuries caused by  the  appellant were  sufficient in the ordinary course of nature  to  cause death,  the  appellant is guilty of  an  offence  punishable under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In  these  circumstances,  we  confirm  the  conviction  and sentence and dismiss the appeal. P.B.R.                                                Appeal dismissed. 526