Punishment for murder is provided under Section 302 of the IPC and in order to successfully canvass its case, such evidence must be presented which proves that Michael acted in such a manner that he must have known that his actions would either deflect or knew that his actions were bound to cause the death of Jenny. It can also be presumed from the type of blows delivered and the number of times the blows were landed on the head of the victim showing the accused’s desire to kill the victim. In the present case, Michael killed Jenny in more than one way using an axe and expert testimony showed that the impacts were powerful enough to kill her instantly. In Virsa Singh v. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab, (1958 AIR 465, 1958 SCR 1495) laid down that there can be no conviction for the offence unless the prosecution is able to prove both the act and the intent. But when it comes to intent the nature of the injuries and the weapon is the key component to consider. In the scenes discussed herein, the injuries that Jenny’s body received, according to the medical examiner, indicated that the killer wanted her dead. Michael hit the vulnerable part of the body several times all of which resulted in fatal harm to the body, thus satisfying the Section 302 IPC requirement of a clear intention to kill.

In addition, the case of **State of M.P. v. Ram Prasad (2010) 9 SCC 200** also strengthened the idea where the court observed that the nature and location of the injuries and if they are inflicted more on vital parts of a body like head or chest or any part definitely reflects the accused’s malicious intention to murder the deceased. As it can be observed from the case of Michael, the forensic studies show that Jenny had been attacked on the head, which is a vital part of the body and such acts could not have been perpetrated without the aim of killing her.