192 Criminal Law-

death. It observed that the word "likely" implies hioL

lower probability of risk. If the risk is of
degree or igher and
degree, it is culpable homicide and if the risk is higher aand lower
death
e
is the probable result, it will be murder. The intent and
postulate the existence of a positiv mental attitudekno and . ledge
mental condition is the special mens rea necessary for the
The court further observed that Section 300
offence.
when the offence is murder and when it is culpable
indicates
homicid
not amounting to murder. Murder 1s an
aggravated form of
culpable homicide. The existence of one of the tour conditione
mentioned in this section turns culpable homicide into murder
The court also explained that the word "act" in all the
clauses
of Sec. 299 or Sec. 300 denotes not only a single act but also
a series of acts taken as a single act.
Decision -The court held that the attack in the present case was
pre-planned. Though injuries were not on vital parts of the
body and no lethal weapon was used (only lathis were used),
but looking at the injuries, the medical opinion and other ta
and circumstances of the case the oftence was a murder within
3rdly of Section 300, IPC. Because the injuries caused were
intended to be caused and were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death (even though it cannot be said
that the death of the deceased was
intended).
LEADING CASE: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v R. PUNNAYYA
(AIR 1977 SC 45)
If two elements - () whether the bodily injury found on the
deceased was intentionally inflicted by the accused, and, (i) it so.

15. A, B, C and D caught

four of them tied E to a
E red-handed while destroying their crops a ight. Then
order to compel him to
tree and began pounding him with kicks and ws.
speak out (E denied his hand in previous desti
crops), A thrust a
buming bamboo into his mouth causing injunies

when E
was later taken to the extens estifed
that the injuries were hospital he died the next day. The
dotnature
to cause death. A is cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary cou
Decide prosecuted for the offence of culpable homicide lde ICLC-1999)

16. A had some political with B. Finding B alone one day, A with his friend
beat him with tathis. rivalry
B suffered
to internal

due
bleeding. On being prosecuted formultiple
murder, A and
ires and died
fracture
his friends argue
they
that

had intended not to kil but

L . C - 9 5

only to cause him hurt. Decide.

 Culpable
Homicide and Murder 193

they
sufficient
sufficient
to cause death in
the ordinary courseof

were they established, the offence will be murder irrespective

estab
are

death.]
-

accused did not intended to

ature cause
that
f a c t ths
rthe
the fact
the two
bad blood between
of

CrIn this case, there

was
Facts In
involved in number of incidents and
factions
and they were
On one day, the deceased (belonging to
criminal proceedings.
tollowed other faction. When
by members of
one faction) was he was not
55 year old man, tried to ran away,
the deceased,
a
indiscriminately pounded the legs
who
allowed by the accused sticks and continued the beating till
and arms of his by heavy left the spot. The
unconscious. The accused than
he became no less than
found as as 19 injuries out of which
doctor many
9 were found to be grievous. The doctor gave the
(internally) sufficient to cause
opinion that the injuries were cumulatively
death in the ordinary course of nature.
the trial court.
The accused were convicted under Sec. 302 by
conviction to one under
On appeal the High Court altered their
Court.
Sec. 304, Part I. The State filed appeal to the Supreme
Issue Whether the offence disclosed by the facts and
established is murder or culpable homicide
not
Circumstances
amounting to murder?
Obseruations and Decision - The counsel for respondents (i.e.
accused) contended that since the accused selected only non
injuries the
vital parts of the body of deceased forreainflicting for bringing
ney could not be attributed the mens most requisite
it could be said
the case under 3rdly of Sec. 300; at theinflicted were likely to
aat
they had knowledge that injuries
causedeath, and thus the case falls underon behalf29
Section clause ().
of the State
On the other hand, it was contended to cause death, the
nat even if the accused had no intention Sec. 300.
acts established fully bring the case within 3rdly of

he court the accused confined the

observed that as
theretore, they
to the legs and arms of the deceased,
eating the contemplation of
to cause death" within
Seentention
Sec. or Sec. 300 cl. (1). However,
the case e.
299 (a) the court held that
was covered by clause thirdly of Sec. 300.

if two elements-) whether the

bodecourt stated thatdeceased was intentionally inflicted
bodily jury found on the
 Criminal Law-f

194 by the accused, and, ( ) if so, were they sutticient to Cas.

the
cause
-are established.
.
course
of nature
offence
death inwill
the be murder
ordinary irrespective of the tact that accisthe
accused
cause
death. In the present th case,
intended to the sava
did the accused in beating,
not
used by age
formidable weapon
state of unarmed victi
tim,
the
m a nintensity
execution, the helpless
n e r of its of the violence caused all viewed against the
es,
between the parties
animosity
background of previous caused were
conclusion that injuries
lead to the
irresistibly not accidental.
doctor's
Further,
and were
intentionally inflicted, sufficient
evidence testified that the injuries were cumulatively
to cause death. Thus,
both the
course of nature
in the ordinary 300 were satisfied
elements of clause thirdly of Sec.
requisite connection between the act of the
direct causal
ie. there was a
were the direct cause of
accused and the death and the injuries
court altered the
conviction trom under Sec.
the death. The
IPC.
304 to one under Sec. 302,
case also points out the
Comments The judgment in this
-

homicide not
distinction between murder and culpable
earlier in this chapter). The
amounting to murder (discussed
highlights the fact that the injuries may not individually
be
case

sufficient, but if cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary

course

of nature to cause death, the case is made out under thirdly of

Sec. 300 (Also see, Brij Bhushanv State AIR 1957 SC 460).
Further, multiple injuries by ordinary or formidable weapon
on non-vital parts of the body may also bring the case
under
thirdly of Sec. 300 (Also see Anda v State AIR 1966 SC 148)J
In Hari Shankar v State of Rajasthan (AIR 1999 SC 2629), while the o
appellant-accused and the deceased were taking tea in the tea-club
the Air Force, an exchange of words took place between the OO0
account of demand made by the former for returning Rs.0 a m e

which he had advanced to the latter (deceased). The appellant bech the

angry and picked up the burning kerosene stove and threw it On

deceased. The clothes of the deceased caught fire and he died.
w ot o o s

The appellant contended that as the quarrel between the two h a d

place all of a sudden and in the heat of the moment, the appelar 2erely

picked up the stove and thrown it towards the deceased, it was me

a rash and negligent act punishable under Sec. 304-A, IPC. Rejecting
 Culpable
Homicide and Murder 195
the apex court held the appellant had
since
.t's submission,
deceased he would've known tha. *
stove on the
r a burning
likely to cause burn injuries result1ng in death amounting by
to

nable homicide under Sec.

299 (2). There was no murder as held hr
the High Court.17

IL. Cases coming under Clause (1) of Sec. 300

LEADING CASE: R. VENKALU v STATE OF HYDERABAD18

(AIR 1956 SC 171)

Where the accused had set fire to the cottage, the intention to kill
deceased could be taken as proved in view of the other ineriminating
circumstances.]
Facts In this case there was a long-standing dispute between
the deceased and the appellants over a certain piece of land.
n night h appellants (Narsiah and R. Venkalu), in
one

rsuance hiracy to commit murder of Moinuddin,

eased, the single room hut in which he was
eping a the door from outside. When the servants
thede other villagers tried to rescue the deceased
aey w the superior force of the accused and
heir ntly, death of the deceased occurred.