MURDER

SEC 300
1st PART
i. Where a person has been done an act, &
ii. The death is caused by such act, &
iii. Act is done with the intention of causing death, or

2nd part

i. When the offender knows that a bodily injury is likely to cause the death of
person to whom harm is caused, &
ii. He does such act with the intention to cause such bodily injury to that person, or

3rd part

i. Such act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, &
ii. The bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause the death, or (such bodily injury is actually inflicted)

4th part

i. When the offender knows that such act is so imminently dangerous that in all
probability,
ii. It must cause death or, such bodily injury as it likely to cause death, &
iii. He commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death
or such injury,

In such circumstances, culpable homicide is murder.

1 CLAUSE EXPLAINED

Section 300, Firstly: Act By Which The Death Caused Is Done With The Intention Of
Causing Death.

it is manifest that Clause (1) of Section 300, which relates to "act done w intention of
causing death", is identical to the first clause of Section 299, wh also deals with "doing
an act with the intention of causing death". Therefore, act coming under clause (1) of
Section 300 will also fall under first clause of Section 299 and in both instances, it will
be culpable homicide amounting to murder. It is the most gravest of the species of
culpable homicide.
Mens Rea: Intention Of Causing Death: Once the intention to kill is proved, the
offence is murder unless one of the exceptions applies.

Meaning Of Intention – an act is certainly intentional when it is done with a desire that
certain consequences shall follow from it. An intention also includes foresight of
certainty. A consequence is deemed to be intended though it is not desired when it is
foreseen as substantially certain. For instance, if A, fires a loaded pistol in a crowded
road, it leads at once to the inference that his intention. Was to cause death, though he
might not have desired to kill anyone. Thus, it is possible that an accused may "intend"
certain injuries albeit he may not know or intend the serious consequences of those
injuries. But the injuries in order to be "intentional" should not be such which the
accused in the heat of passion and without any previous enmity happened to just
cause, but should at least be such, for causing which the accused infact strove.

Proof/Inference of Intention: Direct proof of intention is always very difficult to

obtain. When the result is substantially certain or inevitable, no difficulty arises
because in such cases one can presume from the circumstances of the case the
consequences to be intended. For instance, if a man throws a child from the top of a
twenty-storey building, it is evident that he intends the child's death.

Intention to cause death can also be inferred from the act. "Intention is what intention
does". So, the intention of the person can be gathered from the action of the person
and the circumstances of the case.

EXCPTIONS (when C.H is not amount to murder)

EXCEPTION 1(GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION)

i. Where a person has given the offender grave and sudden provocation, &
ii. Such provocation has deprived him of the power of self-control, &
iii. At the time when he was so deprived of the power of self-control,
a) He caused the death of person who gave the provocation, or
b) He caused the death of any other person, &
 c) He caused it by mistake or accident,

Then, culpable homicide is not murder.

1st the offender must not have sought or voluntarily provoked the provocation as an
excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

2nd ly

i. Where anything is done with the obideance to the law, or

ii. Where anything is done by a public servant in the lawful exercise of his power,
iii. The provocation must not have been given by such thing.

3rd ly where anything is done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence, the
provocation must not have been given by such thing.

EXPLANATION

Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from
amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Essential Ingredients of Exception

i. There must be provocation to the accused;

ii. The provocation must be both grave and sudden. If provocation is sudden but
not grave, or vice-versa, then the offender cannot avail of the benefit of this
exception. For eg. Merely slapping on the back may cause sudden provocation,
but the same is not grave.
iii. The provocation must be such as would deprive any reasonable man of his
power of self-control over himself.
iv. The act of killing of the accused must have been done when he was deprived of
his power of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation. It must be done
under the immediate impulse of provocation.
v. The offender must not have reflected, deliberated or cooled between the
provocation and the mortal stroke. Thus, there must not be sufficient time for
the passion caused by the provocation to cool down and reason to reassert its
control.
vi. The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the
provocation or that of any other person by mistake or accident.
vii. Provocation must be proved and not presumed.

Provocation must be grave and sudden

Grave: The provocation pleaded must be grave. 'Grave' means that it must be serious
enough to influence the mind of the person provoked. Each little provocation cannot
be called grave simply because the consequences ensuing from the provocation at the
hands of the accused had been grave. The provocation must be such as will upset not
merely a hastily, hot-tempered and hypersensitive person, but even a person of
ordinary sense and calmness. An accused person must distinctly show not only that the
act was done under the influence of some feeling. Which took away, from the person
doing it, all control over his actions, but also that, which had an adequate cause.

Sudden: Apart from being grave, provocation must be sudden. Lapse of time changes
provocation into resentment, which is founded on revenge, and not upon the absence
of self-control caused by passion. The reason for excusing a person, who acts under
grave and sudden provocation, is that he has lost his reasons. If however, the accused
shows that he has deliberated in any way, or there has been lapse of time, which would
enable him to cool down, he cannot be said to be acting under sudden provocation.

Various Tests of Grave and Sudden Provocation: The Supreme Court in K.M.
Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605, has extensively discussed the law
relating to provocation in India and observed:

i. The test of 'grave provocation' is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the

same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the
accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.
ii. In India, words and gestures may also under certain circumstances, cause grave
and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first
exception to Section 300 IPC.
iii. The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken
into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and
sudden provocation for committing the offence; and (4) The fatal blow should
be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and
not after the passion has cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving the
accused room and scope for premeditation and calculation.

EXCEPTION 2 (PRIVATE DEFENCE)

i. Where the offender has the right of private defence of person or property, &
ii. He has exercising such right in good faith, &
iii. In the exercise of such right he exceed the power given to him by law, &
iv. He caused the death of the person against whom he was exercising such right of
defence,
 v. He caused the death without premeditation, &
vi. He had no intention of doing more harm than is necessary for such defence,
Then such C.H is not murder.

Essential ingredients

i. Act must be done in exercise of the right of private defence of person or

property;
ii. Act must have been done in good faith;
iii. The person doing the act must have exceeded his right given to him by law and
have thereby caused death;
iv. Act must have been done without premeditation; and
v. Act must have been done without any intention of causing more harm than was
necessary in self-defence.

There must be right of private defence

This exception is not attracted when no right of private defence accrued to the accused
who inflicts fatal injuries to the deceased. Where there was no reasonable
apprehension of danger to body or property and where the threat had ceased to exist,
the accused was neither entitled to a right of private defence, nor to the benefit of
Exception 2 to Section 300.

Act must have been in good faith

Where there is no evidence that the accused exercised in good faith, the right of
private defence, exception 2 will not apply.

Exceeded the right of private defence

Exceeded the Right of Private defence

Once it is established that there was the existence of the right of private defence, the
burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that such right had been exceeded. The
accused would be said to have exceeded the power, given to him by law, if he causes
more harm than that is necessary for the purpose of his defence.

EXCEPTION 3 (PUBLIC SERVANT CAUSING DEATH)

i. Where a public servant is acting for the advancement of public justice, &
ii. The offender is such public servant or any person aiding him, &
iii. The offender exceeds the powers given to him by law, &
iv. He does not act by which death is caused, &
 v. He believes in good faith that such act is lawful & necessary for the discharge
of his duty as public servant, &
vi. He has done such act without ill will towards the person whose death is caused,
Such C.H is not murder.

EXCEPTION 4 (SUDDEN FIGHT)

i. Where C.H is committed, &

ii. He is caused without premeditation, &
iii. It is caused in a sudden fight, &
iv. Such fight is caused in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, &
v. The offender did not take any undue advantage, &
vi. The offender did not act in a cruel or unusual manner,
Such C.H is not murder

Explanation - It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or

commits the first assault.

Without premeditation in a sudden fight

The term "fight has not been defined in IPC. It implies mutual assault. One sided
attack cannot constitute a fight. It implies a combat or contest, in which both parties
participate, irrespective of how they fare in it. There has to be not only a sudden
quarrel, but also a fight, which means use of criminal force by both the sides. Fight
must be with the person who is killed. Exception 4 would not be attracted when there
was no exchange of criminal force between the deceased, who was unarmed, and the
accused and the assault on the deceased by the accused was deliberate and pressed
with determination when the deceased was fleeing for his life.

To get the benefit of this exception, fight must be a sudden fight. The word 'sudden'
only means that the fight should not have been prearranged. There is no previous
deliberation or determination to fight. A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and
blows on each side. A fight suddenly takes place for which both parties more or less to
be blamed.

Premeditation may be established by direct or positive evidence or by circumstantial

evidence. Evidence of premeditation can be furnished by former grudges or previous
threats and expressions of ill-feelings by acts of preparation to kill, such as procuring a
deadly weapon or selecting a dangerous weapon in preference to one less dangerous,
and by the manner in which the killing was committed. For example, repeated shots,
blows or other acts of violence are sufficient evidence of premeditation.
In the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel

The difference between Exception and Exception 4 to Section 300 is that in case of
Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control and in case of Exception 4 there is
only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reasons and urges them to deeds
which they would not otherwise do.

Without having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner

For the application of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC it is not sufficient to show that
there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It was further be shown
that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner.
Where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner,
the benefit of exception cannot be given to him and the offence would be one of
murder.

EXCEPTION 5 (CONSENT OF DECEASED)

i. Where a death of a person is caused, &

ii. Such person is above the 18 years of age, &
iii. He gave his own consent for suffering the death or taking the risk of death,
Such C.H is not murder.