What question did the Supreme Court consider?

Whether the case was murder or only culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 300 thirdly of the IPC.

Why did the Court treat it as murder under Section 300 thirdly?

Because the accused intended the specific head injury and that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Does a single blow reduce liability?

No. If the single blow is deliberate and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, it can amount to murder.

What facts showed intention?

An ambush without quarrel, the aimed lathi strike to the head, and the immediate fatal result indicated intention to cause that very injury.

What was the final outcome?

Conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was upheld; the appeal was dismissed.

gudar-dusadh-v-state-of-bihar-air-1972-sc-952

Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 952)

Supreme Court of India 1972 Division Bench AIR 1972 SC 952 Criminal Law • Murder (s.300) ~7 min

CASE_TITLE: Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 952) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 300 thirdly, murder, culpable homicide SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: single blow, IPC 302, lathi blow, Patna High Court PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: gudar-dusadh-v-state-of-bihar-air-1972-sc-952

Quick Summary

The case decides if a single, deliberate head blow with a lathi is murder or only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held it was murder under Section 300 thirdly: the accused intended the precise bodily injury, and that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Conviction under Section 302 IPC stood; appeal dismissed.

```

Issues

Is the offence murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
Does Section 300 thirdly apply to a single, targeted head blow?

Rules

Section 300, Clause Thirdly (IPC): Murder is committed when (1) the accused intends to cause the bodily injury, and (2) the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Focus: intention for the particular injury and medical sufficiency of that very injury.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for facts in Gudar Dusadh case

14 Aug 1965 morning: Ramlal and his son Ramashish return from their paddy field.

Ambush: Six men, hiding in bushes, attack them. Ramlal dies; his son is injured.

Background: A day earlier, two men killed a goat. On Ramlal’s advice, the owner filed a police report.

Blow: The appellant strikes Ramlal’s head with a lathi. Ramlal falls and dies on the spot.

Utterance: A co-accused says the blow was because Ramlal triggered the criminal case.

Aftermath: Accused set a hut on fire and flee.

Medical: 3-inch fracture on the left parietal bone; death due to brain compression—injury sufficient to cause death.

Procedural: Convicted under Sections 302 & 147 IPC. Patna High Court affirmed; appeal reached the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant

At most, culpable homicide—not murder.
Only a single blow; intention to kill not proved.
Group incident; individual liability should be lesser.

Respondent (State)

Premeditated ambush; no sudden quarrel.
Deliberate head strike shows intent to cause that precise injury.
Medical proof: injury sufficient to cause death—Section 300 thirdly applies.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC. The head blow was deliberate, not accidental. The injury intended and inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, Section 300 thirdly applied. The conviction and sentence were upheld; appeal dismissed.

Ratio

If the accused intends the particular bodily injury and that injury is by itself sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the case falls within Section 300 thirdly, even where there is only a single blow.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the single blow situation under Section 300 thirdly.
Separates intended specific injury from general intention to kill.
Shows how medical sufficiency of the intended injury controls the result.

Key Takeaways

Intention + Sufficiency = Section 300 thirdly.
Single, deliberate head blow may amount to murder.
Absence of quarrel supports premeditation and intention.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Aim Head, Death Likely.”

Aim: Did the accused intend that specific injury?
Head: Site/force show the precise injury intended.
Death Likely: Is that injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death?

IRAC Outline

Part	Content
Issue	Murder or culpable homicide? Does Section 300 thirdly apply?
Rule	Intent to cause the bodily injury + that injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Application	Ambush; aimed lathi blow to head; medical proof of sufficiency—shows intention to cause that very fatal injury.
Conclusion	Murder made out; conviction under Section 302 affirmed; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

Section 300 thirdly: Murder where the intended bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Culpable Homicide: Causing death with some fault; may or may not be murder depending on intention and knowledge.
Single Blow: One strike; not decisive by itself—court checks intention and sufficiency of injury.

FAQs

No. It becomes murder under Section 300 thirdly only if the intended injury is, by itself, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The planned ambush, the targeted head strike with force, and the absence of any sudden quarrel showed intention to cause that very injury.

The head fracture caused brain compression; doctors stated the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.