“Law Master’s Publication”
“Murder”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 99
(..14..)
(Chapter XVI 299 to 377)
Murder (Ss.300- 303)
QUESTION BANK
Q.1. Death caused by rash and negligent act.
SYNOPSIS
I]
MURDER
A)
B)
Definitions
When culpable homicide is not Murder (S. 300, excepting 1 to 5)
These circumstances are-
1)
2)
Grave and Sadden provocation
Exceeding right of private defence
Exceeding Lawful exercise of Power
Sudden Fight
3)
4)
5)
Death Caused With Victims Consent
C)
Difference between Murder (S.304) and culpable homicide (S.299)
With the intention of causing death
1)
2)
3)
The act is likely to cause death
Intention of causing the bodily injury
II]
Causing death by Negligence (Ss.304A)
Attempt to Commit Suicide S.309
III]
a)
b)
Suicide
Abetment Of Suicide (Ss.305 to 306)
I]
MURDER:-
“Law Master’s Publication”
A) Definitions of Murder: -
S.300 defines the offence of murder. The offence of murder is more serious than
“Murder”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 100
culpable homicide and any other offences against human life. The punishment for murder
is provided in S. 302
S.300 provides that-
Culpable homicide is murder:-
1)
If the act by which the death is caused is done to cause
a)
b)
Death or
bodily
injury
as
is
likely
to
cause
the
death
of
the person to whom the harm is caused or
c)
Such
bodily
injury
as
is
sufficient
in
the
ordinary
course of nature to cause death or
2)
If the person committing the act knows that it is so immanently dangerous
that it must, in all probability, cause-
a)
b)
Death, or
Such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
c) commits such an act without any excuse for incurring
the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid
Punishment for murder is death or life imprisonment (S. 302).
Illustrations
A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
B)
When Culpable Homicide is not Murder (S. 300, exceptions 1 to 5):-
Exceptions 1 to 5 to S. 300 provide for the circumstances under which the offence
of murder is reduced to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In a true sense,
they are not exceptions or defences to the offence of murder but extenuating
circumstances which reduce the crime of murder to that of lesser offences of culpable
homicide.
These Circumstances are:-
1)
Grave and Sadden Provocation:-
Suppose the offender is deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden
provocation. In that case, it causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or of
any other person by mistake or accident.
The following Conditions are Necessary to Prove Grave and Sudden Provocation:-
a)
The provocation must not be voluntarily sought or voluntarily provoked
by the offender as an excuse. Thus, A called B a coward in the presence of several
persons and challenged him to strike him if he could; B then struck him. A drew a pistol
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Murder”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 101
and fired at B, thereby causing B’s death. Here, the provocation was voluntarily sought
by A; therefore, A is guilty of murder, and the plea of the grave and sudden provocation
does not apply.
b)
Provocation cannot be allowed as a defence if anything is done in obedience
to the law or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of his powers. For example, A is
arrested by a bailiff for legally exercising his powers. A is excited to sudden and violent
passion by the arrest and kills Z. This is murder.
c) Provocation cannot be allowed as a defence against the lawful exercise of the
right of private defence.
E.g., A attempts to Cut Z’s nose. In the exercise of the right of private defence, Z
lays hold on A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved by sudden and violent passion
and, in consequence, kills Z. This is murder.
Facts: Nanavati was working as a second-in-command in the navy. His wife’s name was
Sylvia. They had three children while Nanavati was on tour; his wife had illicit contact
with one Ahuja, a businessman in Bombay. Ahuja also had illicit contacts with several
other women. When Nanavati returned from his duty, his wife Sylvia confessed to him her
illicit intimacy with Ahuja. Nanavati then went directly to Ahuja's residence and asked him
to marry Sylvia and look after the three children. Ahuja replied that he could not marry
Sylvia and questioned, “Am I to marry every woman I slept with?”. Nanavati got angry at
Ahuja's behaviour. He then went to his ship. He then took from the store of the ship a
revolver and six cartridges and, on the false pretext, loaded the same. He then directly went
to the flat of Ahuja, entered his bedroom and shot him dead. His defence was of provocation
given to him by the deceased Ahuja.
Held: The court rejected the defence of provocation and observed that three hours
had lapsed from the provocation and the actual killing. It shows that the killing was pre-
mediated, and therefore, it cannot be said that the killing was caused by grave and sudden
provocation.
2)
Exceeding the Right of Private Defence:-
Suppose the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence,
exceeds the limit and causes the person's death without pre-meditation and without any
intention of doing more harm than necessary. In that case, he is guilty of culpable homicide
and not murder.
Illustration
1 AIR 1962 SC 605
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Murder”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 102
Z attempts to horsewhip A. but not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A
draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no
other means to prevent himself from being horsewhipped shoots Z dead. A has not
committed murder but only culpable homicide.
3)
Exceeding Lawful Exercise of Power:-
If a public servant (or a person aiding a public servant) exceeds these legal powers
and causes death by an act believed by him, in good faith, to be lawful, and to be lawful
for the due discharge of his duty and without ill will towards the person killed it is the
offence of culpable homicide and not murder.
4)
Sudden Fight:-
If the death is caused
a)
b)
c)
d)
Without pre-meditation,
in the sudden fight,
in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and
Without the offenders having-
i)
ii)
taken undue advantage or
acting in a cruel or unusual manner, the act is culpable homicide and not
In Pappu V/s State of M.P.
murder.
A.I.R. 2006 SC 2659
Facts: A sudden quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused. The
quarrel was sudden, and there was no premeditation. It was found that the accused had not
taken any advantage nor acted cruelly. The accused gave only one lathi blow. Before giving
a blow, the accused was not armed with any weapon.
Held: - It is culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
5)
Death Caused By Victims Consent:-
If the person killed, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the
risk of death with his own consent, it is the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustration
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years of age, to
commit suicide. Here, on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his
own death; A has therefore abetted murder.
C)
Difference between Murder (S. 300) and Culpable Homicide (S. 299):-
The difference between the offence of ‘Murder’ and ‘Culpable Homicide’ is that of
degree and not of form. The degree of intention or knowledge determines the nature of the
offence, whether it is murder or culpable homicide.
‘Culpable homicide’ is the genus, and ‘murder’ is its species. All murders are
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Murder”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 103
culpable homicides, but all culpable homicides are not murder. Speaking generally,
‘culpable homicide’ without ‘special characteristics of murder’ (i.e., mentioned in S.300 1
to 4) is ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. To fix punishment proportionate to
the gravity of the offence of culpable homicide, the Code recognises three degrees of
‘Culpable homicide.’ Murder is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in
S. 300. The second is culpable ‘homicide of the second degree’, which is punishable under
the first part of s.304. Then comes the ‘Culpable homicide of ‘third degree’’. This is the
lowest type of culpable homicide, and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest
among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is
punishable under the second part of S.304.
The distinction between these two has been well set out in the case-
Facts: - The accused knocked his wife down, put one knee on her chest, and struck
her two-three violent blows on the face with a closed fist, causing extravagations of blood
and resulting in her death. The issue was whether the offence disclosed from the facts was
murder or culpable homicide?
Held:- that it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder as there was no
intention to cause death and bodily injury was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death.
In this case, Justice Melvill draws a distinction between ‘culpable homicide’ and
‘Murder’, in the following tabular form.
Culpable Homicide S. 299
Murder S. 300
A person commits culpable Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is
homicide if the act by which the murder if the act by which the death is caused is done
death is caused is done.
Intention
a) With the intention of causing 1) With the intention of causing death, or
death, or
b) with the intention of causing 2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the
such bodily injury as is likely to offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the
cause death; or
person to whom the harm is caused or
2 ILR 1 BOM 342
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Murder”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 104
3) with the intention of causing bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death or
Knowledge
c) with the knowledge that the 4) With the knowledge that the act is so imminently
act is likely to cause death
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
a)
With the intention of causing death:-
According to Melwill J., through Cl-(a) of S. 299 and clause (1) of S.300, is same
the distinction between these two is that where there is an intention to kill, the offence is
always murder and not culpable homicide.
b)
The act is likely to cause death:-
If the death is likely to result, it is culpable homicide. If it is the most probable result,
it is murder.
c) Intention of causing the bodily injury:-
The intention of causing death is not an essential requirement of clauses (1) and
clause (2). The intention of causing bodily injury is present in both these clauses. Still, the
intention of causing bodily injury coupled with the offender’s knowledge of the likelihood
of such injury causing the death of the particular victim is sufficient to bring the killing
within the ambit of this clause. However, clause (b) of S.299 does not postulate such
knowledge.
In clause (3) of S.300, the word sufficient in the ordinary course of nature has been
used instead of the words ‘likely to cause death’ occurring in the corresponding clause (1)
of S.299. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and
a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This distinction
is one of the degrees of probability of death. This determines whether the culpable
homicide is of the gravest, medium, or lowest degree. It is not necessary that the offender
intended to cause death, so long as the death results from the intentional bodily injury or
injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Clause(c) of S. 299 and clause(2) of S. 300 both require knowledge of the
probability of the act causing death, but clause (2) of S. 300 requires knowledge of the
offender's highest degree of probability of causing death.
II]
CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE (S.304 A)-
Negligent act in causing death is punishable under I.P.C by S.304 A, but the offence
is not as serious as that of causing death intentionally, i.e., murder and culpable homicide.
S.304 A provides that causing the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Murder”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 105
not amounting to culpable homicide is punishable with two years’ imprisonment and a fine.
Thus, causing death by rash and negligent driving is punishable under this section.
III] ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE (S. 309)
1)
Suicide
Suicide is self-inflicted homicide. It is the only section in the Indian Penal Code
which punishes an attempt to commit an offence but not the offence itself. The obvious
reason for this is that if the person succeeds in committing suicide, he dies; therefore, no
question of punishing him occurs. It is either an attempt or abetment to commit suicide that
is made punishable.
An attempt to commit suicide is punishable with imprisonment for up to one year,
a fine, or both (S. 309).
2)
Abetment of Suicide (Ss.305-306)-
Abetment to commit suicide is punishable under Ss. 305 to 306. If a minor (i.e., a
person under 18 years of age), a lunatic, an idiot, or a delirious or intoxicated person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with
death or imprisonment for life and also a fine and in case a suicide of any person other than
mentioned above is abetted punishment is imprisonment up to 10 years and fine (S. 305
and 306).
*****