Giving mental shock even though not touching the body physically is hurt under section 319, Penal Code. Assault: Accused put out his hand towards the woman in a menacing manner so as to cause her to apprehend that he was about to use criminal force, his act would constitute assault. (DB) 45 Cr.LJ 247 Jashammal v. Barhmanand 211 IC 88.
"Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" in clause 3 of section 300 does not mean that death must certainly result. If a person knowingly causes injuries which are more likely to cause death in the ordinary way, his offence falls under clause (2) or clause (3) of section 300. When a person dies of what is usually called "Merciless beating" the offence is one of murder. (DB) 43 Cr.LJ 812 Arjan Singh etc. v. Emperor 202 IC 315.
Number of injuries not commensurate with the number of persons involved conviction of all the accused can be recorded. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 540 Paroo etc.
Nature and seat of injuries indicate intention to kill e.g. when two knife blows are given on vital parts of the body perforating intestines leading to peritonitis. (SC) 1975 SCMR 289 Wazir Gul. 
Sharp end of spear not used: Accused armed with spears refrained from using sharp end, but beating the victim to pulp. Held, guilty of murder. (DB) ILR 18 Lah. 231 Bachna etc. v. Crown.
Intention to kill: Where intention to kill is present the offence is murder; where the intention is not present, the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Where a person fires a shot-gun at another at such a close range that death could be the only result, it indicates the intention to murder. 34 Cr.LJ 1071 = AIR 1939 Pat. 147 Rajindera Parshad Singh.
Intention to kill can be presumed when there is intention to cause grievous bodily hurt. 1982 PSC 727 (House of Lords) R.v. Cunningham.
Intention to murder established by location of injury, the force with which blow inflicted, and the damage the blow had done. PLJ 1985 Cr.C. (Lah.) 413. Muhammad Ramzan.
Khandu's case. A man struck another on the head with a stick, and believing him to be dead set fire to the hut to remove all evidence of the crime. It was found that the blow had only stunned the deceased and the death was really caused by the injuries from burning when the accused set fire to the hut. Held, the offence committed was attempt to murder. (FB) 15 Bom. 194. The Calcutta High Court followed the view in Dalu Sardar 18 CWN 1279 = AIR 1915 Cal. 221 but Madras High Court disagreed in Kaliappa Goundan. 57 Mad. 158, and so did Patna High Court in Nibal Mahto, 18 Pat. 485, holding that where an accused person commits two or more acts closely following upon or connected with each other, they cannot be separated and assigned one intention to one and the other intention to the other act, but both must be ascribed to the original intention which promoted the commission of those acts without which neither could have been done. Also see AIR 1931 Lah. 27 = 32 Cr. LJ 483 Gajjan Singh.
Blunt side of hatchet on head causing fracture of skull, force and weapon used raises a presumption that accused intended to cause death or knew that death would be caused: offence u/S. 302, PPC. PLD 1985 Lah. 584 Lal Khan.
Object of assault not human being but evil spirit. The accused in good faith believed that the object of assault was not a human being but an evil spirit conviction under section 302 or 304 cannot be maintained. Accused acquitted as protected by section 79, I.P.C. (DB) 43 Cr.LJ 787 Bonda Kuiv. Emperor.
Section 300 exception 4 explained by the Supreme Court. Where there was some interval between the first "Sudden quarrel"; and the fight which followed preparation having been made in the meanwhile; firing incident lasting 4 hours and the assailants bringing kerosene oil and setting room on fire to drive out the defendants the transaction would not be covered by the exception. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 607 Muhammad Khan v. Dost Muhammad etc. PLJ 1975 SC 406.
Going home to get a knife. When the deceased had a sudden fight and a sudden quarrel both suffered equal injuries but after the initial fight the accused went to his house rushed back with a knife and injured a P.W. and gave a fatal stab in the chest of the deceased. Held, the case fell under section 302, PPC without exception. (SC) 1976 SCMR 36 Muhammad Nawaz v. Abdul Hye etc.
Sudden quarrel but no fight, the offence would fall under section 302 and not under section 304, PPC (DB) 49 Cr.LJ 110 Pakhar Singh v. Emperor.
Injuries by one person possible, Highly improbable that accused would cause injuries at the same part of the body with a similar weapon; each accused stopping after causing one injury and then letting another accused cause injury at about the same place on the body. Convictions and sentences set aside. 1986 SCMR 730 Ali Gohar etc.
Injury at one spot, appearing to be work of one man. Deceased found to have suffered three continuous incise wounds on back of neck. Injuries held to be work of one man, all of them being on one spot. High Court's observation that both the deceased appeared to be murdered by one man, held, unexceptionable. (SC) 1978 SCMR 353. Muhammad Usman v. Raban etc. PLJ 1978 SC 404.
Killing another person while intending to kill some other person. The liability does not change. Death sentence held, proper. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1112 Ghani.
Character of hired assassin is that he would be unknown to the complainant party and such assassin must select such a place and time for committing the crime, particularly a major one, where he is not at all recognised, and he must act alone, 1988 SCMR 213 Nabi Bakhsh etc.
Person not intended killed. Accused fired to kill S but bullet passed through S and killed M, held, is not a mitigating circumstance. Death sentence confirmed. (DB) PLD 1976 Lah. 795 Muhammad Siddiq PLJ 1976 Lah.701.
Killing one "J" while intending to shoot another "M" is just as bad a murder. (See Section 301, PPC). Petition dismissed. (SC) 1972 SCMR 586 Shaukat Ali. PLD 1973 SC 332 Shah Muhammad.
Culpable homicide and murder distinction. Section 299 and section 300, I.P.C. compared and distinction drawn. (1876) 1 Bom., 42. Reg. v. Govinda. 10 Lah. 477 Inder Singh. 20 Lah. 77 Rahman.
Murderer or his progeny cannot inherit the property of the victim; matter is now settled by Ordinance 1 of 1991 (Qisas and Diyat). PLJ 1991 SC 405. Mahia v. Shaia etc PLD 1964 Lah. 451 Mst. Begaman v. Saroo.
Fabricated injuries are often incised wounds, occasionally stab wounds and some times bruises, contused or lacerated injuries are rare as such injuries are painful. Still rare are fire-arm injuries and burns. Fabricated injuries are usually multiple, superficial and not on vital parts of the body. (D.B) PLJ 1996 (Lah) 1933, Ehsan Ullah etc.