# SUDERSHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF DELHI

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 520
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-10-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1971
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, N. L. UNTWALlA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sudershan-kumar-v-the-state-of-delhi-6172
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Penal Codc-S. 300, Thirdly-Scope of
When the deccastd declined to murry him the appellant who was her puram·
our, thr~atened to kill her in a manner that she would have a lingering death. He
carried out the threat by pouring acid over h,er 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 s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced hiD.1 to
imprisonment for lifo. The High Court confirmed the conviction and senten.ce.
On appeal it was contendt0d 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 s. 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]
A
B
c
(1) To bring a case under cl. 3 of s. 300 the prosecution must establish : (i)
D
bodily injury (ii) the nature of the injury (iii) intention to inflict that parti•:ular
bodily injury and (iv) that it is sutllcent to cause death in the ordinary cour:;e of
nature. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution the offence
is murder under s. 300 cl. 3 l.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 bi:yond doubt that the accused intimded
E
to cause injuries by throwing acid and the injuries were actually caused on the
person of the deceased.
.
Vlrsa Singh v. The State. of Pu11;ab [1958] S.C.R. 1495, followed.
(2) There is no substance in the argument thnt death was due to negligence.
There is no evid~nce that the deceased died bocuuse 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
f
the body wa~ a pre-planned one and intended to cause the injuries which were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
[525B]

## Text

520
SUDERSHAN KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF DELHI
October 30, 1974
[K. K. MATHEW AND N. L. UNTWALlA, JJ.]
Penal Codc-S. 300, Thirdly-Scope of
When the deccastd declined to murry him the appellant who was her puram·
our, thr~atened to kill her in a manner that she would have a lingering death. He
carried out the threat by pouring acid over h,er 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 s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced hiD.1 to
imprisonment for lifo. The High Court confirmed the conviction and senten.ce.
On appeal it was contendt0d 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 s. 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]
A
B
c
(1) To bring a case under cl. 3 of s. 300 the prosecution must establish : (i)
D
bodily injury (ii) the nature of the injury (iii) intention to inflict that parti•:ular
bodily injury and (iv) that it is sutllcent to cause death in the ordinary cour:;e of
nature. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution the offence
is murder under s. 300 cl. 3 l.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 bi:yond doubt that the accused intimded
E
to cause injuries by throwing acid and the injuries were actually caused on the
person of the deceased.
.
Vlrsa Singh v. The State. of Pu11;ab [1958] S.C.R. 1495, followed.
(2) There is no substance in the argument thnt death was due to negligence.
There is no evid~nce that the deceased died bocuuse 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
f
the body wa~ a pre-planned one and intended to cause the injuries which were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
[525B]
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 Omrt in Cri A. No. 38 of 1968.
Bawa Gui·charm1 Singh and D. D. Sharma for the Appellant.
Girish Chandra, for the respondent.
The Jttdgme.nt of the Court was delivered by
G
MATHEW J.
When the special leave to appeal was granted, this
lJ
Court limited it to the question 0f the nature of the offence committed by the appellant (accused) in (~ausing the death of one Maya
De•i by pouring acid on her body.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
s. KUMAR v. DELI-II (Mathew, J.)
i21
The prosecution case was
as follows. Maya
Devi, aged 19'
years at the ume of her death was the daughter of Raj
Kumari
(P.W. 1). Both the mother and daui:hter had taken to the proression of dancing and smgmg and used to live in an apartment on
G. B. Road, LJelhi.
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 ID such a
manner that she would have a lingering
death. On August 14,
1967, af 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 accu'sed came to the room holding a jug
containing acid and a bottle. The accused then poured the aci~
out of the jug on Maya Devi, her son and Raj Kumari. They started crying and the accused threw the jug on the cot !fnd 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 iniuries on her person.
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 2ettin2 first aid from the City Clinic, Raj Kumari went to
Police Station Kamla Market and lodged the F.l.R. at 8.30 A.M.
The Assistant Sub-Inspector Surjit Singh wevt to the City Clinic
and found Maya Devi lying in a precarious condition. She was not
ID 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.
·
·
.
~ter August 16, 1967, . Maya Devi started having toxaemia and
mfectton of the burns. It was, therefore, thought better to transfer
her to the Special Burns Unit in Safdarjang Hospital.
Accon!ingly.
on ~ugust 21, 1967, Maya Devi was admitted
in the Safdarjang
Hospital at about 9 P.M.
She was treated
in that Hospital by
Dr. K. S.
Rai Kumar, House Surgeon and Dr. (Miss)
Nirmala
Laksh!ll!. Narain.
~n August 23. 1967, Shri V. N. Chaturvedi,
Sub-DiVJs•onal Magistrate, Hauz Qazi, went to Safdariang Ho<pital
and recorded the statement of Maya Devi.
Jn that statement also
she stated that the accused had thrown acid on her, her mother and
522
SUPREME COUl.T REPORTS
eon OD the morniD£ of Au&i1st 14, 1967. Maya Devi died in Safdarjang Hospital at 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 perlormetl 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 he
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 -~hat in case she did not marry him he would kill her and that
he dld rto1 go to the h.1us: of Maya Devi on the morning of August
!Iii, 1967 with a jug and bottle of acid.
T'ie lc~rm:d Sessions Judge accepted the prnsecution cJ'c
,,nd
convicted the
accu~cd under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced. him
!o
imprisonment for life.
The co'1viction and sentence were co··firmeJ
by the High Court.
The appellant's contention w~s that he did not intend to kill Mnyll
A
Devi but intcnd::d only to disfigure her, and. therefore, the offence
would fall either under s. 304, part 1 or unrJer s. 326 of the fndian
D
Penal C'.ode.
The offence of murder is defined under s. 300 of the
I P .C. Arcord;ng to c1ame 3 of thrrt section, culpable homicide
is
murder if. the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causinl? bodilv iniurv to any person and the bodily injury
intended to he inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death.
In Virsa SinRh v. The State of Puniab(I), this Coμr/said:
"To put it shortly.
the prosecution
must
prove the
followinl? facts
before it can bring a case under
s. 300
"3rdiy" :
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 llll intention
E
1
to inflict that particular bodily iniury, that is to say, t}1at
G
it was not acciclental or unintentional, or that some other
kind of iniury wRs intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, :the
enquiry nroceeds further and,
Fourthlv. it must be nrovec! t1'at the iniurv of the tvoe
iust de~cribl-,d made un of th~ thr~e eleme11ts, set out above
H
is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
11) fl9581 S.C.R. 14q5_ at 1500--15•)1.
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
S· ImMAR v. DELHI (Mathew, I.)
623
This part of tho enquiry is purely objective and infeccntial and
has nothmg to. do with the mtention of the offender.
Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and of course, the
burden is on
the
prosecution
througuout the offence is murder under s. 300, 3rdiy. 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 iniurv 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 CJty Clinic has stated in his evidence
that the injuries suffered by Maya Devi were sufficient collect1vety,
in the ordinary course of natl!re, to cause death.
The opinion of
Dr. Jain is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. K. S. Raj
Kumar.
He 11aid that the bums were to the extent of 35 per cent of the body,
that if the bum exceeded 30 per cent, the same would be dangerou8
to life and that the injuries on Maya Devi were dangerous to life.
Dr. S. S. Kaushal who conducted the post-mortem examination wM
of the view that rleath was due to toxaemia and septi-semia from
absorption of toxine on account of the extensive superficial ulceration of the body caused bv 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
tor about 12 davs 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'5
Medical Jurisprudenre and ToJ:icology, 17th ed., p: 196).
" .. In suppurative cases, death may occur after five or
six weeks or even longer" ( ibi4. p. 198).
Tay1'or says tJat after th"': four~h day cf the iniury,
"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 wa~
not the direct result of the injuries caused by the said burns but wa~
on account of some supervening circumstances not resulting from
the injuries and therefore, the appellant could not be hdd guil!y cf
murder.
He relied on the evidence of Dr. (Miss) Nirmala L~k<hmi
Narain who had stated, on her cross-examinatirm, t1'at the cau'c of
death of Maya Devi was malaena and respiratory fai1ure.
Malaena,
according to Dr. Jain is nothinit but passing of old blood in the
-(I) Se• "Tuylor'q P~inclples and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence", 12th ed.,
Vol. I, p, 331.
..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.It.
stools. The evidence of Dr. S. S. Kaush,al w~o. performed th~ postmortem examination of the dead body is definite. He says •
"Death, in my opinion, was due to toxae~a and sep?·
sem.ia from absorpuon of toxins from extensive superficial
ulceration of the body caused by some corrosive matenal.''
As already stated, the evidence of Dr. Jain and Dr. Raj. Kum~
is also to the effect that the in.juries caused on Maya
Devi
were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
T~e fact
that Mava Devi developed symptoms of malaena
and resprratory
failure an'd. they also contributed to her death cannot in any way
.affect our conclusion that the injuries caused by the acid burns were
the direct c:ause of her death.
"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
B
c
of the stomach and duodenum, often with erosions, occasionally
acute
ulcers,
is a more common post-mor'.em
finding : the condition is due to anoxia from hypotension
and stasis.
The large bowel may also be involved" (see
D
Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence,
12th ed. Vol. I, p. 331).
Mciii, in his Medical Jurisprudence, has stated that burns would
·Cause:
"Inflammation
of serous
membrances
and internal.
E
organs, such as meningitis,
peritonitis,
oedema glottidis,
pleurisy, bronchitis, broncho-pheumonia, pheumonia, ente·
ritis and periora:inR
ulcer of the
duodenum (17th ed.
p. 197).
Nor is there any substance in the argument that fytaya Dev:i was
not given proper treatment and that her deiith was due to negligence
:r
of the doctors who treated her. The evidence shows that imme.-
di~t~ly after she received the injuries, she was taken to the City
01mc and there Dr. Jain treated her. As her condition did not improve, .she was. removed to the Burns Unit of Safdarjang Hospital.
There 1s 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 :
G
"'Vhere death is caused by bodily injury, the person
who causes such bct:lily injury
shall be· deemed to have
caused. the death, although by, resorting to proper remedies
and sk1llful treatment the death
might have been prevented".
•
The arfn]men.t of counsel that the accused only intended to disfigure Maya Devi and not to cause her death overlooks the evidence
ot Raj Kumari that the appellant threatened Maya Devi that if she
H
A
8
c
s. ICUMAI\ V. DELlll (Mat~w, /.)
did not marry him, mt will have a lingering death and also tile
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 · iJJ.tended to cause tJ:ie injury which he aetuaRy
caused. As the injuries caused by the appellant were sufficient in
the ortliriary course of nature to cause death, the appellant is guilty
of an offence punishable under s. 302 of the lnllian Penal Code.
In these circumstances, we confirm the conviction and sentence
and dismiss the appeal.
· · ·
P.B.R.
Appeal dismissed.