INTRODUCTION :
Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or2ndly:- 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, or3rdly:- 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, or4thly:- 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.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY :Researcher has used doctrinal method while dealing with the research project related to " THE OFFENCE OF MURDER UNDER SECTION 300(4)".
HYPOTHESIS :- Section 300 clause 4 deals with the offence of murder where the person have knowledge that his act cause death of other person. There are some minor acts due to which an act may be culpable homicide or murder, it depends on situation or intention of a person.
1
Section 300 Clause 4 — Knowledge of imminently dangerous act. — This clause comprehends generally the commission of imminently dangerous acts which must in all probability cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. When such an act is done with the knowledge that death might be the probable result and without any excuse for including the risk of causing death or injury as is likely to cause death, the offence is murder, This clause applies to cases of dangerous action without an intention to cause specific bodily injury to any person, e.g., furious driving or firing at a target near the public road.’ However, the act done must be accompanied with the knowledge that the act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (i)
death, or
(ii)
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Further, the accused must have committed the act without any excuse for incurring the risk of
(a) causing death or (b) such injury as is likely to cause death. Thus a man who strikes another in the throat with a knife, must be taken to know that he is doing an act imminently dangerous to the life of the person at whom he strikes and that a probable result of his act will be to cause that person’s death.
2
Difference Between Culpable Homicide and Murder:According to Sir James Stephen the definition of culpable homicide and murder are the weakest part of the Code, as they are defined in forms closely resembling each other and at times it becomes difficult to distinguish bet ween the two, ‘as the causing of death’ is common to both. Further, there must necessarily be criminal intention or knowledge in both culpable homicide and murder. However, the difference between culpable homicide and murder is real though very fine and based upon a very subtle distinction of the intention and knowledge involved in these crimes. The true difference lies in the degree, there being the greater intention or knowledge of the fatal consequences in the one case than the other. The four cases describing the offence under section 300, I.P.C. attempt to explain this difference. In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC 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'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300, the following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences.
3
Culpable Homicide section 299
Murder Section 300
. A. With the intention of causing death;
(1) With the intention of causing death;
B. with the intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death
(2) 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; 3. 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-
c. with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death
4. 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.
4
Distinction between section 299(c) and section 300 clause (4); Relate to the Degree of knowledge of the consequences. — The Code contemplates in clause (c) to section 299, I.P.C. and clause (4) to section 300, I.P.C. as to when an act is culpable homicide and murder by reason of the act being done with the knowledge described in the respective clauses. The knowledge used in clause (c) to section 299, I.P.C., and clause (4) to section 300, I.P.C. refers to personal knowledge. The difference between the two clauses relate to the words: (i)
‘likely to cause death’ in section 299 clause (c); and
(ii)
‘must in all probability cause death.’ (under section 3 00, clause (4).
The fourth clause to section 300 contemplates the doing of an imminently dangerous act in general and not the doing of any bodily harm to any particular individual. It is designed to provide for rarest of rare cases wherein the accused puts, in jeopardy lives of many persons as envisaged in illustration (d) to section 300, I.P.C. and the like. This clause is usually invoked in those cases where there is no intention to cause death of any particular person, but the act is done with such callousness towards the result and the risk taken is such that it may be stated that the person knows that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. For example, where death is caused by firing a loaded gun into a crowd or by poisoning a well from which people are accustomed to draw water, or by opening the grid of a bridge just as a railway passenger train is about to pass over it. In such and like cases, the imminently dangerous act, the extreme depravity of mind regardless ness of sanctity of human life, and property that place the crime upon the same level as the taking of life by intention.
5
Knowledge v. Intention:The distinction between knowledge and intention. Knowledge in the context of Section 299 would, inter alia, mean consciousness or realization or understanding. The distinction between the terms 'knowledge' and 'intention' again is a difference of degrees. An inference of knowledge that it is likely to cause death must be arrived at keeping in view the fact situation obtaining in each case. The accused must be aware of the consequences of his act. Knowledge denotes a bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which the human mind might itself remain supine or inactive whereas intention connotes a conscious state in which mental faculties are roused into activity and summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and specific end which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself. 'intention' is different from 'motive' or 'ignorance' or' negligence'. It is the 'knowledge' or 'intention' with which the act is done that makes difference, in arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. Therefore, it is necessary to know the meaning of these expressions as used in these provisions. The 'intention' and 'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind and their existence has to be gathered from the circumstances, such as the, weapon used, the ferocity of attack, multiplicity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the code designedly used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and it is accepted that the knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention that such consequences should ensue. As compared to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end."
6
CASE LAWS : 1
In Nannhu v. State , the accused beat his wife by a lathi inflicting two blows on non-vital part of her body as a result of which she fell down unconscious. He cut her into three pieces by a sharp weapon and buried the pieces. It was said in his defence that while cutting the deceased he genuinely believed that she was dead by that time and, therefore, he could not be held guilty of murder. The court rejected the argument and observed that two lathi blows on non-vital parts would generally never result in death, and consequently, the accused belief that he was cutting a dead body could not have any substance and must be ignored. Since the act of cutting a living person must be known to be so immenently dangerous as to cause death in all probability the acuused was guilty of murder on the basis of this clause. 2
In case of Urgen Sherpa v. State , where the accused threw a burning lamp at her wife and she caught fire and the accused and his mother did nothing to save her and she died, it was held that this clause was attracted. 3
In case of Nga Maung v. Emp ., where the accused gave a great blow on the back of the deceased by a formidable weapon causing his death he was held guilty of murder under this clause. 4
In case of Dulal Hazra v. State , where the accused tied the mouth, throat and hands of deceased causing her death by asphyxiation due to throttling, he was held guilty of murder as he knew that his act was so imminently dangerous as to cause death in all probability. 5
In case of Gyarsibhai v. State , where the accused lady was facing so many problems at home, became thoroughly dissatisfied with her life, thought that life for her had become unbearable and jumped into a well along with her three children, resulting in their death but she was saved, it was held that this clause would apply and she was guilty of murder.
1
1960 CrLJ 605. 1985 CrLJ 1988. 3 (1907)6 CrLJ389. 4 1987CrLJ 857. 5 1953CrLJ 588. 2
7
6
In case of Kanji v. State , where the accused was heavily drunk and he fired a gun shot at a boy hitting him on his abdomen causing his death, this clause was held to be attracted. 7
In case of Pal Singh v. Emperor , where the accused who were drunk attacked the deceased by lathis without any motive, the were held guilty of murder under this clause. 8
In case of Dhirajia v. Emperor , the accused, a young village woman, was continuously ill-treated by her husband. On the day of the incident thay had again quarreled and the husband had threatened that he would beat her. The woman slipped away with her six month child in the night. But after having gone for some distance she heard the sound of foot steps behind her. Turning around she saw her husband was following her. She got in a panic and immediately jumped into a well along with her child. The child died even though she was saved. It was held that even though she knew that her act of jumping into the well along with her ch ild was so imminently dangerous that it must cause death of the child in all probability, yet she had a valid excuse for incurring such risk as in a panic she had to decide at the spur of the moment as to how could she get away from her husband who was following her and she thought that jumping into the well was the only way and she did the same. Consequently, clause(4) of section 300 was not attracted and she was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under clause (3) of section 299 of the code.
6
1953 CrLJ434. (1917)18 CrLJ868. 8 (1940) All 647. 7
8
Conclusion Knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. A person who voluntarily inflicts injury such as to endanger life must always, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, be taken to know that he is likely to cause death (e.g. when the accused fired his gun in the air to scare away the opposite party and in the act one stray pellet caused gunshot wound to a person killing him). The word ‘knowledge’ includes all cases of rash acts by which death is caused, for rashness’ imports a knowledge of the likely result of an act which the actor does in spite of the risk. in some cases, gross negligence may amount to knowledge. For example, where The accused kills a person by hitting him under the belief that he was hitting at a ghost.
9
Bibliography and webliography : The Indian Penal Code by Prof. T. Bhattacharya. Indian Penal Code by Ratan Lal and Dhiraj Lal.
www.lawyersclubindia.com › Experts › Students www.vakilno1.com/bareacts. www.ipcbooks.org
10
