Intention

That illustration is the Sanhita teaching the point of this chapter in its own words. Purpose and foresight are different states, and the statute deals with both by naming both.

How intention is proved

Intention is never proved directly. The Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad set out the circumstances from which it is gathered, and the list is the most practically useful thing in this chapter.

The nature of the weapon used; whether the weapon was carried by the accused or picked up on the spot; whether the blow was aimed at a vital part of the body; the amount of force used; whether the act was in the course of a sudden quarrel or a free fight; whether the incident occurred by chance or there was premeditation; whether there was prior enmity or the deceased was a stranger; whether there was grave and sudden provocation and what caused it; whether it was in the heat of passion; whether the person inflicting the injury took undue advantage or acted in a cruel and unusual manner; and whether a single blow was dealt or several. The Court said the list is not exhaustive.

To these the law adds the rebuttable presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. That is a rule of evidence. It does not make consequence the same thing as intention, and evidence that the accused did not foresee the consequence rebuts it.

Worked example

Two versions of the same incident. In each, Prakash strikes Ravi once and Ravi dies.

Version one. Prakash goes home, fetches a heavy iron bar, waits an hour, and strikes Ravi on the head with full force. He then conceals the bar.

Apply the list. The weapon was brought, not picked up; the blow was to a vital part; the force was full; there was premeditation, shown by the hour's wait; the conduct afterwards was concealment. Intention to cause death is a comfortable inference.

Version two. A sudden quarrel over a parking space. Prakash pushes Ravi, who falls against a projecting bolt and dies.

Apply the same list. No weapon; no blow to a vital part; no premeditation; a sudden quarrel; no prior enmity. Intention to cause death cannot be inferred, and the question becomes whether Prakash knew death was likely, which on these facts he did not, so the offence falls to one of causing death by a rash or negligent act.

Version three, to test the point. Prakash intends only to frighten Ravi and fires a gun over his head in a crowded street, where a ricochet kills him.

There is no direct intention to kill. But the analysis is not over: firing a gun in a crowded street is an act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, and the statute's separate limb for knowledge catches it. This is where the Indian drafting saves the court from the English argument.

Intention distinguished

What it does NOT mean

Intention is not desire. A man may intend a consequence he deeply regrets, as the illustration to section 2(33) says in terms.

Intention is not the same as premeditation. Premeditation is intention formed in advance; intention formed in the instant is still intention.

Intention is not proved by consequence alone. The presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts is rebuttable.

And a good motive does not negative intention. A person who kills to end suffering intends the death.

Quick revision

• Direct intention: the consequence is the purpose. Oblique intention: the consequence is a virtually certain side effect.
• The Sanhita defines no general intention; it defines compounds: 2(7) dishonestly, 2(9) fraudulently, 2(33) voluntarily.
• The illustration to 2(33) is the statute's own teaching: a man who sets fire to an inhabited house to facilitate a robbery causes death voluntarily if he knew it was likely, even if he did not intend it and is sorry for it.
• Indian drafting avoids the English argument about foresight by adding knowledge as a separate limb of the same offence.
• Intention is proved by inference, from the eleven circumstances listed by the Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad, and by the rebuttable presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts.
• Intention is not desire, not premeditation, and not established by consequence alone.

Test yourself

1. Distinguish direct from oblique intention. In direct intention the consequence is what the accused was trying to achieve. In oblique intention it was not his purpose but he knew it was virtually certain to follow from what he was trying to achieve.

2. Why does the Indian statute rarely need to decide whether foresight is intention? Because its offences state intention and knowledge as separate limbs, so a court decides which limb is satisfied instead of deciding whether foresight amounts to intention.

3. Give five of the circumstances from which intention is inferred. The nature of the weapon; whether it was carried or picked up on the spot; whether the blow was aimed at a vital part; the force used; and whether there was premeditation or a sudden quarrel.

4. Does a good motive negative intention? No. Motive is no part of any offence. A person who kills from compassion intends the death, and the motive goes only to sentence.