This article has been written by Ms. Priyanka VK Nair a 2rd year LLB Student of Amity University Mumbai

Section 300 of the IPC defines murder. Then it gives five exceptions. The definition of murder is the expansion of culpable homicide. So according to the section on murder, the offender requires the intention to kill or the knowledge that death is likely to occur or the act done is sufficient in ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person or an act is very dangerous that it might cause. Section 300 points out circumstances where culpable homicide will amount to murder. So culpable homicide is genus and murder is species. For culpable homicide to be murder it must fall within the provisions of clauses (1), (2),(3), or (4) of section 300. And if it falls within the five exceptions mentioned under section 300 then it will not amount to murder. The main difference between culpable homicide and murder lies in the degree of criminality involved though in both cases death occurs.

All murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicide is not murder

Section 300 of the Indian penal code Section 300 Murder. —Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done to cause death, or—

This clause speaks about the intention to cause death by the offender.  This brought in the mens rea of the person. Once the intention of the person is proved, the offense is murder and no exception mentioned in section 300 will be applicable.

In the case of State Of Karnataka V. Mohd. Naseer(2003), the accused attacked the deceased and expressed his intention to cause the death by stating that he would not let him live. The injury that was caused by the accused was sufficient enough in ordinary circumstances to cause death and he was aware of it. This act did not happen in a fit of anger or provocation. therefore, he was punished for murder under section 302 IPC.

 

(Secondly) —If it is done to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

In the case of Rajwant Singh Vs State Of Kerala this case deals with the act done to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death. First, there is an intention to cause bodily harm and then there is also subjective knowledge that the act done to cause harm can the death of the person.  There must be a foresight of death present. So basically, there are two elements

(Firstly)Causing intentional injury 

(secondly) The foresight that the act is going cause death.

In the case of Ashokkumar, Mangabhai Vankar vs State Of Gujrat, the injury to the deceased was caused to the vital parts of the body with a forceful blow with a wooden pestle. It was held that the accused acted to cause the death, and he was held liable for murder.

 

(Thirdly) —If it is done to cause bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

 

Clause 3 of section 300 tests subjective knowledge. It deals with acts done to cause bodily injury and the bodily injury inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.  The accused do not need to have the intention to cause death it will be considered murder if the victim suffers an injury that is found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

 

In the case of Anda Vs  State Of Rajasthan  the accused beat the victim inside a house after dragging him. The arms and legs were smashed and many wounds and bruises were there on his body. The accused was held liable as the injuries caused to the victim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

 

(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid

This clause is usually used in cases where there is no intention to cause the death of any person. It may be stated that the person knows that the act is likely to cause death or bodily injury that are likely to cause the death of the person.

In one case the accused poured kerosene on the clothes of the deceased and set those clothes on fire. the deceased died because of the burns. In the case, the court observed the accused was aware that the act committed by him would cause death or bodily injury to the victim that is likely to cause her death. He was punished under clause 4 of section 300 IPC.

The cases relating to poisoning and acid throwing are also covered under this section because the person administering arsenic is well aware that his act is dangerous and that It had all the probability to cause death.

Exception to section 300:

The four clauses to section 300 explain circumstances where culpable homicide became murder. The culpable homicide is not considered murder in the five circumstances attached to section 300 as exceptions 1 -5.

When culpable homicide is not murder:

Exception 1.—Grave and sudden provocation

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender

• whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation,
• causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or
• causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

 

Provided that, the provocation is –

• That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
• That the provocation is not given by anything done in  obedience to the law, or
• by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers.
• in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.

 

According to exception 1, the act done must be under the immediate impulse of provocation. In the case of Bahadur V. Emperor (1935)

the deceased was singing a very provocative song that he had an intrigue with the wife of the accused. The accused managed his anger in the previous situation but on this occasion, he lost his self-control and shot the deceased. Here the accused got the benefit of exception 1.

The provocation must be grave and sudden. If the act was not sudden or grave the exception would not apply for example slapping a person may cause sudden provocation but at the same time, it was not grave. The provocation must be proved and not presumed.

In the case of B.D Khunte Vs Union Of India    it was held by the supreme court that the act must be done immediately after the provocation has happened and the act must be done in the effect of the provocation. In this case, the initial provocation was grave and sudden, the appellant didn’t react anything to it and took time to cool down and there was no evidence to show that even after that incident the accused continued to suffer such provocation. Hence the act committed was revenge. So, he was convicted of murder.

In the case of K.M Nanavati Vs State Of Maharastra (1961)

the defendant is a naval officer he was married and has 3 children. His wife confessed to him that she had an affair with another person namely prem Ahuja, the deceased. The accused then returned to the ship and got a semi-automatic pistol and also got 6 bullets and went to the deceased flat, entered the bedroom while it was asleep, and shot him. After that accused himself went to the police station and surrendered. The supreme court in this case held that to decide if the accused had the exception one of section 300. The following contentions were established by the court:

Sudden and grave provocation~ a reasonable man is in the same society as the accused  and is also placed in a similar situation as the accused would also provoke him and he might lose his control

In some cases, even words and gestures may also lead to provocation.

The mental health of the accused must be taken into consideration whether the act would lead to sudden grave provocation to commit the offense.

The fatal blow must trace the influence of passion which arises from provocation.

 

In the case of  Hansa Sansa Singh Vs State Of Punjab   The accused saw the deceased committing the act of sodomy on his son. This led to sudden and grave provocation and he murdered the deceased. The court held that the act done by the deceased was sufficient to provoke the accused so he was given the benefit of exception 2 of section 300.

 

Exception 2.— exceeding the right of private defense

The right of self-defence is mentioned in chapter 4 of IPC where the person even has the right to kill someone. For example, if one assault kidnaps a girl, or rape or murder can be killed and the victim of such offense can kill the person. The offender in this situation must act in good faith and the right of private defence exceeds legal limits and causes the death of a person without premeditations and without any intention of doing more harm than necessary, culpable homicide is not murder.

The following are the condition that applies to the application of exception 2:

• The act must be done in good faith
• Legal limits of his rights must be exceeded
• Death must be caused
• Death caused must be
• Without premeditation and
• Without any intention of doing more harm than necessary.

In the case of State Of Orissa Vs Ghenu Harijan(1977)   two Adivasi brothers who were drunken quarreled. The deceased ran towards his brother with a stick and the responded with a blow on the head of the deceased. The high court held that the act was done in private defence.

There is no right to private defence where one kills another wilfully, where the other person is unarmed, where one person flees to save his life, and a person assaulting and killing would be liable for murder. To enjoy the benefit of exception 2, no more harm must be done other than necessary. And death caused must be without premeditation and without any intention of causing more harm than necessary.

 

Exception 3-Public servant exceeding his powers

• Culpable homicide is not murder if the public servant
• acting for the advancement of public justice
• exceeds the powers given to him by law, and
• causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and
• without ill will towards the person whose death is caused.

When a public servant is acting for public justice and when doing so they exceed their legal powers and cause death this exception gives protection from the punishment of death. But it the following condition

• The act must be done in good faith
• He must believe that the act was lawful  and necessary
• The act must not be done with some ill will toward the  victim

For example, a public servant who is authorized to execute the sentence of whipping should beat the accused to death, if he does so it will amount to murder.

In the case of Dakhi Singh   a police officer shot a thief who tried to escape but the shot injured the driver and he dies. But it was held that the police officer was acting in good faith believing the act was lawful and necessary for public justice. he was not charged with murder.

This exception has given immunity to the police officer to do their duty but it had led to an increase in illegal detention, brutal methods of investigation, and fake police encounters.

In the case of peoples Union For Civil Liberties Vs State Of Maharastra  the supreme court brought guidelines to be followed by the police during encounters in cases of death and grievous injuries. The guidelines have to be followed mandatorily by all the states

Exception 4.— death caused due to sudden fight without premeditation

Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed

• without premeditation in a sudden fight
• in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
• without the offender having taken  undue advantage oacted in a cruel or unusual manner

in Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control and in exception 4 there is only heat of passion which makes him do things that he would not do otherwise. There is provocation in Exception 4 also but the act done is not the direct consequence of the provocation.

In the case of Ankush Gaikwad V State Of Maharastra

the accused was beating the dog of the deceased and it led to a verbal fight between them which led to a physical fight and the accused hit the deceased with an iron rod. There was no previous enmity between both parties. During the time of the argument, the deceased was asked to shut his mouth. The supreme court held that words used during the time of argument show that the aim of the accused was not to kill him, so the accused was given the benefit exception 4 of section 300.

Similarly in the case of K.Ravi Kumar V. State Of Karnataka

the appellant-accused got a message that his father was seriously ill. he asked his wife to get ready to go to meet his father but she refused there was a heated argument between the two and the accused lost his mental balance and stabbed her with a knife and then poured kerosene and set her on fire. The court held that the incident was the outcome of his anger and he was given exception 4 of section 300 IPC.

Exception 5.—death caused with the victim’s consent

• Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused,
• being above the age of eighteen years,
• suffers death or takes the risk of death with his consent.

Illustration: A patient named B, who is suffering from incurable disease requests C, her husband to put her to death as she is unable to bear the pain. So listening to the words of B, C kills B while she was asleep. C will be liable for culpable homicide amounting to murder. This is because the death of B happened with her consent.

To take benefit of exception 5 of section 300 of IPC:

• Consent must be given free and voluntarily
• The onus of proving the consent is on the accused.

Euthanasia and mercy killing:

In India, euthanasia and mercy killing is illegal and will be considered only as murder mainly because people may misuse these rights and the court may not be able to distinguish between the criminal intent of the person who commits the act. Any person who uses any substance or force to kill an ill patient will be punished under section 302IPC or if it is done with the consent of the patient then it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the person will be held liable under section 304IPC. The physician who assists will also be held liable under section 306 IPC.

In the Paswan Case  the accused who was studying in class 10 failed the exam thrice and he decided to end his life. He was married. So he informed his wife about his decision to die. His wife asked him to kill her first and then kill himself. The accused killed his wife and by the time he could kill himself, the police caught him. Since the wife has given her consent he was held liable under exception 5 of section 300.

References :

• State of Karnataka vs Mohd Naseer (2003) SCC 444
• Rajwant Singh vs state of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874
• Ashok Kumar magabhai vankar v. State of Gujrat(2011) SCC 2012
• Bahadur v. emperor,1935 SCC118
• B.D Khunte Vs Union Of India  (2015) SCC 286
• K.m kanavati v. state of maharastra AIR 1962 SC 605
• Hansa Sansa Singh Vs State Of Punjab (1976) SCC 255
• State of orissa v ghenu harijan 1977 SCC 113
• Dakhi Singh v. state 1955 SCC 281
• Ankush Gaikwad V State Of Maharastra 2013 SCC 770
• Dasrath Paswan v. state of bihar 1957 SCC 129
• Indian penal code- Ratanlal Dhirajalal 36th edition

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening