Judgement Briefs

Criminal Law

Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar

AIR 1972 SC 952

Citation
AIR 1972 SC 952
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
1972

Facts

  • A dispute existed between the accused group and the deceased’s side.
  • The deceased, Ramlal, was approximately sixty-five years old.
  • The accused lay in wait for or intercepted him.
  • Gudar Dusadh struck Ramlal once on the head with a lathi.
  • The blow caused a fracture of the skull and compression of the brain.
  • Ramlal died almost immediately.
  • Medical evidence stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
  • Gudar argued that:
  • only one blow had been delivered;
  • a lathi was not necessarily a deadly weapon;
  • absence of repeated blows showed lack of intention to murder.

Issues

  • Whether a single lathi blow can amount to murder.
  • Whether Section 300 thirdly applies where only one injury is inflicted.
  • Whether intention to cause the particular head injury could be inferred.

Rule

  • The number of blows is not decisive in distinguishing murder from culpable homicide.
  • A single intentional injury may constitute murder under Section 300 thirdly where:
  • the accused intended to inflict that injury;
  • it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
  • Intention may be inferred from:
  • the weapon;
  • force used;
  • part of the body targeted;
  • age and vulnerability of the victim;
  • circumstances of the attack.
  • There is no universal “single-blow rule” automatically reducing murder to culpable homicide.

Application

  • Gudar did not strike a random or non-vital part of the body.
  • He directed the lathi at the head of an elderly man.
  • The blow was delivered with sufficient force to fracture the skull and compress the brain.
  • The gravity of the injury showed that the force was substantial.
  • The surrounding circumstances indicated a deliberate attack rather than accidental contact during confusion.
  • Under the Virsa Singh principle, the Court separated:
  • intention to inflict the head blow;
  • objective sufficiency of the resulting injury.
  • Gudar plainly intended to strike the head with the lathi.
  • Medical evidence established that the injury actually caused was sufficient ordinarily to cause death.
  • It was unnecessary to prove that he internally desired Ramlal’s death or understood the exact medical effect of skull compression.
  • The argument based solely on the single blow was therefore rejected.
  • A person does not receive automatic reduction merely because the chosen injury succeeds in killing immediately.
  • What matters is the nature and intention of the blow, not its numerical repetition.
  • No statutory exception reducing murder was established.

Held

  • The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder.
  • The single deliberate lathi blow on the head produced an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
  • Use this case for: one intentional blow can constitute murder when the particular injury is ordinarily sufficient to cause death.