UNLAWFUL

HOMICIDE

SECTIONS 299 & 300 OF IPC

Dr. Meera Mathew
Assistant Professor, SLS-N
Offences dealing with unlawful
homicide– 299 to 304B

– Culpable homicide
– Murder
– Transfer of Malice
– Death By negligence
– dowry death
– Causing miscarriage (312)
 HOMICIDE
– Killing of a human being by another human being
Is there LAWFUL HOMICIDE?
– When the death is caused by a person under circumstances
which are excusable or justifiable
– When state or its functionaries do killing for a justifiable cause
 DEGREES OF HOMICIDE AND PUNISHMENT

In the scheme of the Penal Code, “culpable homicides” is genus and “murder”
its specie. To be under the purview of “murder” first requirement is it also
need to be ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa. For the purpose of
fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the
Code practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide.
–The first is, what may be called, “culpable homicide of the first degree”. This
is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as
‘murder’. (Punishment – Capital punishment – life imprisonment)
– The second may be termed as “culpable homicide of the second degree”.
This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. (life imprisonment – 10
years)
–Then, there is “culpable homicide of the third degree”- This is the lowest type
of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is (10 years –less than
that) It is as per the punishable under the second part of Section 304.
CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

•There is no radical difference between culpable

homicide and murder. The true difference between
culpable homicide and murder is only the difference
in degrees of intention and knowledge. A greater
the degree of intention and knowledge, the case
would fall under murder. A lesser degree of intention
or knowledge, the case would fall under culpable
homicide. It is therefore difficult to arrive at any
categorical demarcations or strait jacket
differences between culpable homicide and
murder.
CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT
AMOUNTING TO MURDER (S.299)
Section 300 – Definition of Murder
 Murder- far higher probability of the
causing of death

We can say that the offence of murder requires a higher degree of mens rea than
the offence of culpable homicide which does not amount to murder. This higher
mens rea is imported by the more specific intention and knowledge of the
offender and far higher probability of the causing of death.
– “If diabolical/ cold blooded- brutal killing” (anger theory debunks)
– Premeditated, deliberate and long planning (if proved)
– Procure an skilled killer/goon/thug (certainty)
– Victim is a law enforcement officer (breaking the law for one’s
convenience)
– Committed coupled with non-compoundable offences: - hijacking,
sexual assault, kidnapping
– killing with sharp edged weapons with force on vital body part
– Pouring kerosene/any inflammable stuff and then setting ablaze
– Searching, chasing and then killing
– Hitting on a part of the body no: of times not letting anyone to help
These are instances provided by jurists. (Read Russel, Andrew
Ashworth, Nigam..)
 Two important cases –
Comparing Section 299 (a) with S 300 firstly
 Rawalpenta Venkalu v State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 171
– RV and MM had land dispute
– Prosecution proved that RV had planned and indulged in conspiracy to kill MM.
– On the fateful night, RV along with 3 people, locked the one bed room cottage
when MM went to sleep and set the fire.
– The people who helped RV even prevented others from saving MM from fire.
– Therefore intention is graver and specific that death was ascertained. Hence
murder and not CH
 Sabarjeet Singh v  State Of Uttar Pradesh , 1983 CriLJ 961
– SS along with few people with weapons tress passed on to the land of A & B
(couple) who owned that land.
– SS inflicted injury upon the couple and the child who was there on B’s hand was
snatched and thrown. Due to the internal injury the child died.
– Court stated that SS didn’t use weapon, no intention to kill only injury but likely
to cause death. Therefore CH and not murder.
Intention to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause death

Section 299 second part is - “the intention of causing such

bodily injuries as is likely to cause death”. Here the word
“likely” means probable(“may or may not”). This means the
degree of certainty of the consequence is far lesser. - Morcha v
state of Rajasthan, [1970] AIR 80 (SC)
Section 300 second part is
“If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person
to whom the harm is caused”
The words “knowledge of offender, the person to whom harm is
caused are relevant”
Read illustration (b) to S 300.
Comparing 299 (b) with 300 (2)
– The accused thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased. This
injury caused his death. Medical report stated that the injury was
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
– Issue if accused should be liable under 299 (b) or 300 (2ndly)?
– The Supreme Court while upholding the conviction held, that the
prosecution must prove the following to bring a case under s. 300
– Presence of bodily injury, nature of the injury, element of accident
and sufficiency to cause death are the four essential elements that are
needed to be established in case of bodily injury.
– Once the presence of such injury of extremely grave nature is proved
to be present, the intention will be presumed unless the evidence or
the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion.
– Section 299 (b) deals with volitional act done causing bodily injury
where there is a likelihood of death. Here thrusting a spear + causing
injury into abdomen is grave, so liability under murder.
Section 300 (secondly) with 300 (thirdly)
 Knowledge - meaning?
Knowledge can be established in 3 ways:
1) a perpetrator is aware of the relevant fact
2) a perpetrator correctly believes the relevant fact to exist, or
 3) a perpetrator engaged in “willful blindness,” purposefully avoiding
circumstances that could confirm the existence of the fact.
Eg: A wants to kill B. He got to know that B is travelling on a plane where 20
other passengers are there. He plants the bomb to kill B, here the
intention is to kill B however there is also knowledge that the bomb if gets
blasted it would kill many other people and it is the knowledge.
Read
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-
2230.1954.tb02157.x/pdf
 Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia, AIR 1940 All. 486
Dhirajia- a young woman married to a man named Jhagga. They had a six
months old baby. From the evidence it was proved that the husband did not
treat his wife very well. On the fateful day, late at night Jhagga woke up and
found his wife and the baby missing. He went out in pursuit of them and
when he reached a point close to the railway line he saw her making her
way along the path. When she heard him coming after Dhirajia turned round
in a panic, ran a little distance with the baby girl in her arms and then either
jumped or fell into an open well which was at some little distance from the
path.The little child died while Dhirajia was eventually rescued and suffered
little or no injury. She was charged with the murder of her baby and with an
attempt to commit suicide herself. She has put forward her version of the
affair on three separate occasions: first by a statement in the nature of a
confession; secondly, before the committing Magistrate, and thirdly in the
Court of the Sessions Judge,. The sessions court punished uder 300 (4) , the
appeal was if it is 299 c?
The SC held, “Some degree of knowledge must, we think, be attributed to
every sane person. Obviously, the degree of knowledge which any
particular person can be assumed to possess must vary. We cannot
attribute the same degree of knowledge to an uneducated as to an
educated person. But we think that to some extent knowledge must be
attributed to everyone who is sane. And what we have to consider here is
whether it is possible for us-treating Mt. Dhirajia as a sane person, which
we are bound to do-to conclude that she could possibly have been
ignorant of the fact that the act of jumping into a well with a baby in her
arms was likely to cause that baby's death”.
The factor of panic and fright of the appellant was the reason to shift the
degree from 300 (4) to 299 ©.She was held not to be punished under
attempt to suicide for it was found that she did so in an effort to escape
from her husband
Section 299 (c) with Section 300 (4)
Read Illustration (d) to 300 - imminet danger & certain
Ruli Ram And Anr vs State Of Haryana - 2002 SCC Cr) 1834
Facts: During the election time, the accuced people
wanted to create some disturbances at the polling station
so as to capture the polling booth. They allured two young
boys with sweets and brought them to a pond near to the
polling booth. In the pretext of playing, all went to the
pond, and when it gets deeper, the accused people left the
children and fled to deviate the attention of polling booth
which resulted in the death of the children.
Issue - Knowledge? If so, CH (c) or Murder (4thly)?
– No injuries were caused to the deceased before they were thrown in the
pond, and there was no attempt to even strangulate them. However, the
accused- appellants could be attributed the knowledge that the natural and
proper consequences of their acts was likely to cause death.
– But no certainty as to death. What if children knew swimming?
– Therefore 299 (c)
Comparison of clause (a) of section 299 with clause (1) of section 300
Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 171
Comparison of clause (b) of section 299 with clause (3) of section 300
. Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 654
. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
. State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45 32
. Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 506
.Prahlad Krishant Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 9 SCC 211
Comparison of clause (c) of section 299 with clause (4) of section 300
Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia, AIR 1940 All. 486
. Gyarsibai v. The State, AIR 1953 M.B. 61
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT
AMOUNTING TO MURDER
Even where the death is caused with such Mens rea as
provided under Section 300, it would be Culpable
homicide not amounting to murder if death is caused
1. Under grave & sudden provocation or
2. By exceeding the right of private defence or
3. By a public servant who exceeds the power given to him while discharging his
duties or
4. During a sudden fight or
5. On the consent of the victim
– (Exceptions to S.300)
 Transfer of Malice (Section 301)- Death caused
of a person other than the person intended.

Doctrine of transfer of malice was applied in the case of Gyanendra Kumar v

. State of U.P AIR 1972SC 502, in which a person interfering in a dispute was
killed by a bullet aimed at another.
Homicide by Negligence (S.304A)
– Death is caused by a rash and negligent act and
– Such act does not amount to culpable homicide
– The ingredients of the offence under the section are :-
– The accused should cause the death of human being by an act.
– The act should be rash and negligent
– It should not amount to culpable homicide.
Cases coming under section 304A

– Juggan Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(1965)

– Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 205 86
– S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 685 89
– Mohammed Aynuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 7 SCC
 'Death' in Section 304 B
(Dowry Death)
– •Section304 B does not really define a separate type of
homicide. The 'death' under section 304-B may be caused
by any burns or bodily injury or a death occurring
otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years
of marriage. Clearly, a suicide also will come within the
scope of section 304-B.
When death of lady was subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall
be called “dowry death”