Murder Model Answer Q-3/2020

• Must read the Illustrations of Section-299 and 300

Q. 3/2020 One morning J had a trivial dispute with A, a friend of D. At about 10 p.m.
on the same day when D along with A and another person came out of the house, J
gave a knife blow to D which hit on his chest resulting in his death. At the place of
occurrence there was dim light coming from nearby electric lamp post. The doctor
who conducted autopsy found one stab would four and a half cm plus two and a half
cm on front of left side of chest a 6'o clock position, and opined that injury was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Can J be convicted under section 302, I.P.C.? If not, what offence was committed by
him? Give reasons.
Culpable Homicide
Culpable homicide, as defined in Section 299 of the IPC, is the initial form of
unlawful homicide. While this section outlines culpable homicide simpliciter.
Section 300 also defines culpable homicide amounting to murder. Culpable
homicide encompasses a broader range of offenses than murder, as not all acts of
culpable homicide qualify as murder, although all acts of murder fall under
culpable homicide.
Culpable homicide may broadly be classified into three classes:
1. Culpable homicide simpliciter (Section 299);
2. Culpable homicide amounting to Murder (Section 300); and
3. Culpable homicide not amounting to Murder (Section 300, Exceptions 1 to 5).
Relevant provisions:
Section 299: "Culpable homicide:—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
Section 300: "Murder: Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide
is murder,
Firstly: If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or
Secondly: 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, or
Thirdly: If it is done with the intention of causing 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
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."
Exceptions of Section 300 (Not Amounting to Murder)
1. Exception 1: 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.
a. On grave and sudden provocation.
b. provocation should not be voluntarily sought or deliberately caused by the
accused.
c. Provocation should not be a result of act done by public servant or in
obedience to law.
d. Lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
e. Explanation: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to
prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
2. Exception 4: 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 or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
a. Explanation: It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the
provocation or commits the first assault.
Distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder
Basis of Culpable Homicide
Murder Section 300
Difference Section 299

Someone who causes the Someone who does any act

death of another by doing resulting death of another with
1. Meaning
an act likely to cause that the sufficient intention to
person’s death. cause that person’s death.

3. Section 299 and 304 300 and 302

4. Purpose Likely to cause death To cause death

First- degree Murder, Second-

degree Murder, third-degree
5. Types Lawful and unlawful Murder, Voluntary
manslaughter, and Involuntary
manslaughter.

6. Degree of
Less Sufficient
Intention

The knowledge that the act

7. Knowledge Compulsory
will likely cause death.
 Imprisonment for life or ten
9. Punishment years with or without a Death or Life imprisonment
fine.

Relevant Cases
1. In the case of Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab (1955), On July 13, 1955, Virsa
Singh and five others unlawfully attacked Khem Singh with a spear, causing a
fatal injury to his abdomen. The main issues before the court were whether the
accused's actions were sufficient to cause death and whether the injury was
accidental. The victim's postmortem report indicated that the injury was
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The trial judge
applied section 300(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to convict Virsa Singh for
murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court initially disagreed
but later accepted the postmortem report as evidence. The Supreme Court
ultimately upheld the death sentence, concluding that the accused had the
intention to cause death by using excessive force.
2. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya, (1977), a murder case
in Andhra Pradesh involved nine accused who brutally attacked a political rival,
resulting in the victim's death. The main legal issue was whether the accused
should be charged with murder or culpable homicide. The petitioner argued
for murder under IPC section 300(3), while the respondent claimed culpable
homicide under section 299. The trial court ruled that the accused had no
intention to cause death, citing reasons such as no vital body parts being
targeted and the absence of premeditation. But the Supreme Court,
reinstated the murder conviction, emphasizing that the accused deliberately
avoided vital body parts. The final decision sentenced each accused to life
imprisonment.
Decision of the Question
• In the case, J had a dispute with A, a friend of D. Later that day, when D came out
with A and another friend, J attacked D, inflicting a stab wound that resulted in
fatal injury. The court established a causal connection between the injury and
death. Although there was a possibility that J mistakenly attacked D instead of A
due to dim light, this was not considered a valid defense. No grave or sudden
provocation was found, and even if it existed, J attacked the wrong person.
Consequently, none of the exceptions or illustrations in section 300 could provide
a defense for J. Both elements of section 300(3) were satisfied, leading to J's
conviction under section 302, IPC, as per the precedent set in State of A.P. v.
R. Panyyal.
• If it had fallen under exceptions to section 300, J would have been convicted

for "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" under section 299,

punishable under section 304, IPC, following the decision in Virsa Singh v.
State of Punjab (1958).
State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya
Facts of the Case:
1. Panchayat elections in Andhra Pradesh in 1954 led to violence between rival
political parties.
2. One member of a party was murdered by members of the opposing party.
3. Nine members were accused of the murder, and further incidents of violence
occurred.
4. A meeting was held to resolve issues between the parties, but violence ensued.
5. The deceased and companions were attacked on a bus, resulting in severe injuries.
Issues Presented Before the Court:
• Whether the accused are guilty of murder or culpable homicide.

Contentions of the Parties:

• Petitioner argued for murder under Section 300(3) of the IPC.
• Respondent contended that the accused lacked mens rea for murder and should be
charged with culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC.
Ratio Decendi of the Case:
• The Court found that the accused lacked intention to cause death, as injuries were

inflicted on non-vital body parts.

• High Court reasoned that the attack lacked premeditation and was impulsive,
resulting in reduced imprisonment.
Decision:
• Trial Judge convicted accused under Section 302/34 of IPC, sentencing them to
life imprisonment.
• High Court reduced the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment, citing
lack of intention to cause death.

Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab

Facts of the Case:
1. On July 13, 1955, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Virsa Singh and five others
unlawfully assembled and attacked Khem Singh with a spear, resulting in a fatal
injury to Khem Singh's abdomen.
2. The injury caused Khem Singh's abdomen to fracture, with three coils of
intestines protruding, leading to his death.
Issues Presented Before the Court:
1. Whether the injury inflicted by Virsa Singh was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course.
2. Whether the injury was accidental.
Ratio Decendi of the Case:
1. The Trial Judge found that while the common intention was not to cause death,
reckless actions led to Khem Singh's death, applying section 300(3) of the IPC to
convict Virsa Singh under section 302.
2. Others were acquitted of murder charges but charged under various sections of
the IPC.
Decision:
1. The Sessions Judge convicted Virsa Singh under section 302 of the IPC, ruling
that he intended to cause grievous hurt.
2. The High Court initially ruled section 300(3) inapplicable but later accepted it
based on postmortem evidence.
3. The Supreme Court concluded that Virsa Singh's actions indicated an intention to
cause death, resulting in a dismissal of the appeal and a death sentence under
section 302 of the IPC.