§ 302 – Punishment for Murder

Lays down that minimum punishment for murder shall be life imprisonment and may also be
punished with death. In the new CrPC the discretion of the judge to impose death sentence has
been narrowed, for the court has to provide special reasons for imposing a sentence of death. It
has made imprisonment for life the rule and death sentence an exception. (rarest of the rare
cases).

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab the constitutional bench while upholding the validity of the
death sentence concluded that the death sentence shall be awarded only in the rarest of the rare
cases.

§ 304 – Punishment for Culpable Homicide

First part – if act done with the intention – imprisonment for life or punishment which may
extend to 10 years and fine

Second part – if act only done with knowledge – imprisonment which may extend to 10 years
OR with fine OR with both

Linguistic distinction between the two parts clearly lay down the following 2 things

1) Difference between intention and knowledge

2) Difference in the quantum of punishment

§ 304A – Causing Death by Negligence

It covers those cases wherein a person caused death of another by such acts as are rash or
negligent but there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that death the act will cause
death.

Essential Ingredients of § 304A (Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee)

1) Death of a person
2) Death was caused by the accused during any rash or negligent act
 3) Act doesnot amount to culpable homicide.

and to prove negligence the prosecution must prove the following

1) Existence of duty
2) Breach of that duty causing death
3) The breach of the duty must be characterized as gross negligence

The SC has laid down the law relating to medical negligence in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab

Accused was driving in a negligent manner in a drunken state – caused death of 6 persons – SC
held that accused had sufficient knowledge that his action was likely to cause death and such
action would therefore fall under § 304, Part II. (State Tr PS Lodhi Colony New Delhi v. Sanjeev
Nanda)

§ 304B – Dowry Death

One of the very few sections wherein a minimum punishment is prescribed. Dowry death is a
type of culpable homicide. There is a presumption that husband or his relatives have caused the
death of a woman if a woman dies an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage and
immediately before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relaties.

§ 113B of the Evidence Act lays down a presumption and hence the burden of proof is on the
accused to prove that there has been no dowry death.

The SC took occasion in Shanti v. State of Haryana in explaining the ingredients of § 304B

1) The death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal
circumstances.
2) Such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage
3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband
4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.

The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words like ‘soon
before her death’ is to emphasize the idea that her death should in all probabilities have been the
aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a reasonable, if not
direct, nexus between her death and the dowry related cruelty or harassment inflicted on her.
Accordingly, the determination of period which can come within the term ‘soon before her
death’ is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.

Rajibir v. State of Haryana – SC directed all trial courts to add § 302 to the charge of § 304B, so
that death sentence can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric acts against women.

Interrelationship between § 498A IPC – R&D - 523

Kailash v. State of MP – Soon before death cannot be limited by fixing time – determined by
court on facts

Surendra Singh v. Punjab – when wife commits suicide or dies due to such demands it can be
said that husband has caused death because husband is the direct beneficiary

Kashmir Kaur v. State of Punjab – 6 ingredients

Mustafa Shahadlal Sheikh v. Maharashtra – time between death and demand should not be much
– if more time – mental equilibrium of women cannot be said to be disturbed.

Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab – Burden of Proof is on the husband to prove whether he is liable
under § 304B

Kaliya Perumal v. State of TN – presumption under § 113B of evidence act is discussed.

§ 306 – Abetment to Suicide

Ingredients

1) The deceased committed suicide

2) The accused instigated or abetted the commission of suicide
3) In order to prove that accused abetted commission of suicide by a person1, it has to be
established that
a. The accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by the words, deeds or
willful omission or conduct which made the deceased move forward more quickly
in a forward direction

1
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh
 b. That the accused had intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to
commit suicide. Undoubtedly Mens rea is the necessary concomitant of
instigation.

Words uttered in a fit or anger or emotion without any intention could not be regarded as an
instigation. A type of active role which can be described as amounting to instigation or aiding for
doing something is requisite before a person can be said to have committed the offence under the
section.

Victor Manter v. State of AP – it is essential that there is a direct correlation between intention
and aid to commit the suicide.

M Mohan v. State – there has to be clear Mens Rea to commit the offence. The direct intention
should be to push the deceased to commit suicide.

§ 307 – Attempt to Murder (Subject to updation if in syllabus)

Apply to attempts to murder where there has not been a merely commencement of an execution
of the purpose but something little short of a complete execution, the consummation being
hindered by the circumstances independent of the will of the author.

Vasant Jadhav v. Madras – the intention to kill is a question of fact in § 307 and not question of
law. It completely depends on the fact of the case.

Ansarudin v. State of MP – injury capable of causing death need not be essential. What is
essential for incorporation of § 307 is the intention and knowledge to kill.

§ 309 – Attempt to Commit Suicide

Scope of application got reduced due to the coming into the force of § 115 of the Mental Health
Act, 2017. When read together, if a person commits suicide it shall be presumed, unless proved
otherwise, that he has severe stress and he shall not be tried and punished under § 309 of the IPC.

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (law of the land when read with Common Cause)– Right to life
includes right to life only and not right to die. Article 21 of constitution which gives right to life
in no stretch can be said to give right to die.

P Ratinam v. UOI – SC struck down § 309 of the IPC.