Tag: Murder

Life Imprisonment Sentence Overturned in New Bombay High Court Ruling

Posted on

-Report by Annette Abraham

In a curious turn of events, the Bombay High Court on Friday granted a reduced sentence to the accused in the Sitaram Dada Sarode v. State of Maharashtra case on the grounds of an inconsistent timeline and the occurrence of grave provocation. The accused, an ayurvedic medic, had been convicted of murdering his wife, Sangita Sarode, a pharmacist.

FACTS

The accused married Sangita in 1993. Though they initially lived in Manmad together, Sangita and their children moved to Pune as she secured a job as a pharmacist in the city. Mr. Sitaram would visit his wife and children around once every fortnight. The incident occurred on the evening of 30th August 2008 on one such visit to Pune. Sangita and her children lived at the residence of her mother Shantabai. Here, a supposed quarrel between the accused and his wife resulted in her sustaining a head injury as well as multiple burn wounds.

Sangita was rushed to the hospital where Dr. Govind Kamble recorded Sangita’s statement wherein she stated that Sitaram questioned her fidelity and in rage, hit her on the back of the head and poured a burning substance over her before fleeing the scene. On the basis of this statement, her mother filed a complaint and Sitaram was arrested on 30th August 2008 under Sections 307, 498-A and 504. A second dying declaration was collected by the Head Constable in the evening that day that stated the same.

Sangita succumbed to her injuries six days after the incident on 5th September 2008 and her body was sent for an autopsy. Dr. Ajay Taware conducted the autopsy, concluding that Sangita had sustained 40% burn injuries, the primary cause of death, in addition to a haematoma in her scalp and a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in her brain. Charges against Sitaram were filed under Sections 302, 498-A and 504, however, the accused denied all of them, pleading not guilty. The defence pleaded in the Sessions Court that:

a. The burn wounds sustained by Sangita were caused not due to acid but by fire. On the day of the incident because of the Pola festival, Sangita was preparing food and the over-flaming of the stove caused her injuries.

b. The accused did not have cordial relationships with Shantabai and his brother-in-law Bajirao Masal, who was also present on the day of the incident, and hence they had falsely implicated him and enticed Sitaram’s son to testify against him as well. The Additional Sessions Court found Sitaram to be guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1000/- for the crimes of murder as well as cruelty.

Appellant’s Argument

Mr. Sitaram and his counsel Mr. Pawan Mali raised the matter before the High Court of Bombay requesting the honourable bench to review the legality of the order passed in the sessions court.
The Appellant’s contentions were as follows:

  1. Discrepancies in the Timeline Presented –
    The main contention with the timelines lay in the statements collected from Sangita. In the first dying declaration recorded by Dr. Govind Kamble at 6:30 p.m., Sangita’s right leg thumb impression is taken as a signature owing to the fact that both her hands were severely burnt. However, this statement was only signed at 9:30 p.m., 3 hours after it was collected. Even more curiously, in the statement collected by the Head Constable of Police around 9:30 p.m, Sangita’s signature was given as validation. This is a clear contradiction to the circumstances of the first declaration recorded earlier in the day. Hence, the second declaration must be considered void.
  2. Incomplete Evidence –
    The combined case papers of Sangita that detailed her treatment in the 6 days preceding her death revealed that she had been treated with Silver sulphate. Further, Dr. Pandit and Dr. Shinde, who administered her immediate treatment, noted that she sustained approximately 45% of burns that seemed to be largely flame burns. Dr. Shinde
    and Dr. Pandit, as well as Dr. Sarala Gandhi who administered anaesthesia to Sangit had not been examined by the prosecution.
  3. Provocation –
    From the statements of the main witnesses, it is discernible that constant quarrels used to occur between the married couple and that these often resulted in physical violence.

The appellant, calling upon the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, contended that the constant and unceasing nature of the altercations that occurred over the course of their marriage caused mental turmoil to Sitaram. It was stated that this falls under the ambit of Exception I of Section 300 of the IPC which granted that continuous provocation or torment can be considered equivalent to a singular grave provocation. Under this provision, Sangita’s death would amount not to murder but to culpable homicide.

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that though the accused was responsible for Sangita’s death, the constant provocation caused the accused to temporarily lose the sense of right and wrong and commit the offence and that the murder was not premeditated or planned. Hence, it falls under the ambit of section 304 of the IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

As such, the honourable court ruled that a life sentence was too hefty a punishment and the judgement of the Sessions Court was overruled. Sitaram’s sentence was reduced to 10 years a fine of ₹50,000/- was imposed. Since Sitaram had already served 14 years under imprisonment between 2008 and 2022, the court ordered that he be released forthwith.

Supreme Court acquits two accused in case of mob violence

Posted on

-Report by Nandani Soni

It was held by the Supreme Court of India that the order passed by the High court convicting the accused must be quashed and the appellants must be acquitted.

FACTS

An appeal had been registered against the order passed by the division bench of the High Court. The appellants namely, Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari were tried for the offences under sections, 392/149/302/148/323 IPC for having murdered the Managing director of the company in which they were working, named Rupak Kumar Gogoi. Eyewitnesses were examined by the prosecution, who had identified the appellants and the other accused. After the trial, the trial court acquitted 57 of the accused and convicted 13 of them. The present appeal only remained for Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the accused stated that the appellants were merely office bearers at that time and the labourers gathered while they were talking and attacked. They further submitted that there was no evidence to prove that the appellants had in fact committed the offence, hence the conviction of the accused becomes baseless.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The eye witnesses saw the appellants engaging with the mob and talking to them in their language. Therefore, the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 149 of IPC.

COURT’S DECISION

The court observed that the prosecution failed to gather any concrete evidence for the offences, it was proved that the appellants were merely office bearers at that time and there was hardly any evidence that the appellants even instigated the mob. It was observed:

“If the entire evidence and the deposition of the eye witnesses are scanned, it appears that in fact the appellants were present there as office bearers of the Union. There were some disputes with respect to wages. Even as per the deposition of PW3, on being called, the appellants entered into the office room but soon both of them came out and told the assembled labourers that the Managing Director would distribute their dues and asked them to go to the place where dues were to be distributed. Despite the same, the labourers protested that they would not accept anything other than the full dues and they started shouting…….. in absence of any concrete evidence that the appellants attacked and/or caused any injury to the deceased and/or even the PSO and in absence of any evidence what was uttered by the appellants – accused in their own language and in absence of any evidence that the appellants instigated the labourers – others co-accused, we are of the opinion that the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC.”

Therefore, the decisions of the High court and the Trial Court were set aside as far as the appellants were concerned and the punishment for the other accused was confirmed.

THE PROSECUTION NEEDS TO PROVE THE CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE CASE OF MURDER: SUPREME COURT

Posted on

-Report by Riddhi Ray

It was held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of MUNUWA @ SATISH ETC. V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH that If the prosecution fails to prove its stand without any doubt the accused will be benefitted and will be set free from all the charges of the crime.

FACTS

An appeal had been filed challenging the judgment of Allahabad high court upholding the punishment of life imprisonment and imprisonment for 4 years of the Bareilly sessions court u/s 302, 307 of IPC respectively. The facts are as follows.

On 24th August 1979 around 6:30 p.m. Iqbal bahadur was sitting along with Dr. Asghar (PW-6) in verandah of his office within college campus. Three accused Gullu Rajesh (A1), Vimal Chunnu (A2), and Munuwa Satish (A3) entered the verandah and fired gunshots toward the deceased as well as the deceased’s physician friend (PW-6) and fled away. PW-6 carried the deceased first to the dispensary and then to Aliganj station. At 8:30 p.m. Deceased lodged an FIR u/s 307 of IPC.

After the FIR was registered, he was sent to Bareilly General Hospital by the Head Constable (PW-4) at around 11:00 p.m. PW-6 reached there at 2:00 a.m. on the next day. The statement of the deceased was recorded there by Tehsildar and the magistrate between 11:10 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. And later he passed away on 27th August 1979 at 2:35 a.m. owing to shock and hemorrhage.

The trial court in the judgment dated 31st January 1981 declared the FIR valid and quashed the appellant’s contention. The FIR was considered as the first dying declaration of the deceased against A-2 but the same cannot be applied against A-1 & A-3. The appellants had stated therein that there is an ambiguity in the statements of PW-1 & PW-6 due to intimidation by the accused. Further, the deceased’s statement recording on the 25th is skeptical. However, the trial court discarded these contentions and sentenced the accused u/s 302, 307 & 34 of IPC for life imprisonment & imprisonment for 4 years respectively.

The high court in its judgment rendered the same view as was previously observed by the Trial court. It gave preference to the first declaration made by the deceased over the second one and ambiguity of PW-1 & PW-6 was considered normal as they used to live in the same locality as of accused. During trial A-2 died so, the appeal was concerned with A-1 & A-3.

Appellant’s Contention

Shri Venkita Subramaniam claimed the FIR to be false as it was submitted to the court later than it was supposed to. The place of occurrence and the statement of witnesses PW-1 & PW-6 are suspicious. If the eyewitnesses are discarded then the whole story of prosecution becomes baseless as there’s no strong evidence like the recovery of weapons.

Respondent’s Contention

Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi submitted that the Trial Court and the High court’s decisions are based on reliable evidence and eyewitnesses had no interest or enmity towards the appellant so the courts’ decisions are just.

COURT’S DECISION

The court observed that the cross-examination amplified a lot of ambiguity in the statement of PW-1. The prosecution was not able to produce any weapons or bullet cartridge which is alleged to have been used in such murder. It was observed:

“the prosecution failed to recover blood-stained materials from the place of occurrence, empty cartridges, pellets,
or any other weapon used for commission of the crime, coupled with the contradictions and unnatural conduct of the eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-6, and the inconsistencies in the two dying declarations, we believe that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.”

The decision of the High Court was set aside and the accused were set free from all the charges.

Dying Declaration must be subject to close scrutiny before being relied upon: The Supreme Court

Posted on

-Report by Rhea Mistry

In Kamal Khudal v. the State of Assam, the supreme court stated that conviction can depend upon a dying declaration after corroborating and checking whether the said dying declaration is true. Even if the dying declaration is not corroborated, the court can move forward with the decision relying on it without any further verification.

Kamal Khudal is a convict, appellant herein, and has appealed to the supreme court to dismiss his punishment. Kamal Khudal and two others were accused of the murder of the deceased, Uttam Datta, and charged with an offense punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.

In the judgment dated 10.06.2010, the two accused, Munna Bhoi and Kamal Khudal were charged with life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and if there is a default in payment of the fine, further punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Bipin Bhoi, the third co-accused was granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted from the punishment.

In that case, on 15th July 2007 at 7 am, the co-accused, Munna Bhoi had come to receive the deceased, Uttam Datta, for paddy plantation adjacent to his liquor local shop. When the deceased had left with the co-accused, the brother of the deceased was present at home. After working in the field for some time, the deceased had tagged along with Munna Bhoi to his liquor shop where there was some commotion detected after going in shop as said by
the locals in its vicinity area.

After a few minutes of commotion, the deceased had come out with burns all over him, and this was witnessed by a local, Hanu Khetrapal. When asked about what had happened, the deceased had told him that the accused had poured hot Lali (the raw material used to make liquor) over him which caused him the burns. The deceased left and later his dead body was found in the drain of Duribam Tea Estate.

The learned counsel of the appellant asserted that the court had made an error in deciding the case. He stated that the judge considered the dying declaration without any corroboration and verification, and said the case is “reliable in legal evidence”. Arguing that as per the rule of prudence, the learned counsel stated the court should rely upon corroboration before relying on the dying declaration. The presence of the brother of the deceased, while the deceased went along with the accused, does not prove anything and cannot be considered as last seen together.

According to the medical reports of the postpartum of the deceased done by Dr. Nirmal Chutia, he examined that the deceased had healthy organs, but burns all over his body. His body has 75% of burns which caused multiple dark ecchymosis on his skin. Ecchymosis means discoloring of the skin resulting from blood underneath. He certified that the marks and injuries were caused after the death of the deceased and that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from chest & skull injuries and skull injuries, including that on the thorax, multiple injuries had been detected.

The Supreme Court stated that the High Court decided the case accepting the dying declaration. The court said

“The law regarding the nature, scope, and value as a piece of evidence of oral and written dying declarations is now fairly well settled by various judicial decisions of this Court. A dying declaration, oral or written, before it could be relied upon, must pass a test of reliability as it is a statement made in the absence of the accused and there is no opportunity for the accused even to put it through the fire of cross-examination to test is genuine or veracity. The court has, therefore, subjected it to close scrutiny. But once the court is satisfied that it is a truthful version as to the circumstances in which the death resulted and the persons causing injuries, the law does not expect that there should be corroboration before it can be relied upon. However, if there are infirmities and the court does not find it safe to base any conclusion on it without some further evidence to support it, the question of corroboration arises.”

The maxim “Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” is put to use here which means that a person does not go to his creator with a lie in his mouth. The court believes that when a man is on the brink of death, the person will not lie.

The SC also stated that the appellant was arrested on 23rd July 2007 when he was supposed to be arrested on the 15th of July 2007. And that the appellant has not revealed what or where he was from the 15th of July to the 23rd of July. This proves that he was absconding. The Supreme court dismissed this appeal stating that there is no reason for them to interfere in the appeal and the judgment made by the High Court stands by.

SUPREME COURT AWARDS THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE CASE OF RAPE AND MURDER OF A 7-YEAR-OLD.

Posted on

-Report by Avinash Pandey

The Supreme Court recently upheld the death penalty awarded to a 37-year-old man for the rape and murder of a 7and a half-year-old girl who was mentally and physically challenged, in the case of Manoj Pratap vs State of Rajasthan. The crime had occurred in 2013 in the state of Rajasthan when the convict Manoj Pratap was around 27 years old. The 3-judge bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice CT Ravi Kumar had made an observation that the crime that was in contention was of extreme depravity while looking at the vulnerable state of the victim and the manner in which the crime had been committed.

The victim had been kidnapped by the accused party in this case on a stolen motorcycle by misleading her after offering the little girl sweets and other attractive eatables. Thereafter the accused had taken the victim to a silent area where he committed the crime and at the same time, her head was smashed which resulted in multiple injuries including bone fractures and dislocations. The doctors had reported gruesome injuries on the private parts of the victim as well.

The convict urged in front of the court that he was only 28 years old at the time he had committed the crime and furthermore he has a family and a minor daughter. However, the Supreme Court asserted that these are not mitigating factors and there is no foreseeable probability that there can be any rehabilitation or reformation in the behavior of the convict.

The Supreme Court while upholding the death sentence for the convict stated that the convict was a danger to the maintenance of peace and order in the society. The court said that the conduct that the convict has shown in the past and after going through the facts of the current case it is not possible for the court to reduce the penalty or the punishment from a death sentence to life imprisonment.

For generations, people have argued about the cultural and ethical shame associated with capital execution. Nonetheless, the court has repeatedly given verdicts in favor of the retention of the death penalty in the nation.

Article 21 of the Indian constitution, while recognizing the right to life as an indisputable and basic value, contains several restrictions. The 35th Law Commission Report of 1967 outlined how repealing the death sentence legislation in India just wouldn’t improve society as a whole. Maintaining the safety of people at the forefront of its debate, the study concluded that in order to maintain harmony and security in a society with huge educational or ethical distinctions, a mechanism for the death sentence was necessary for some situations.

The punishment allotted to the convict, in any case, is based on the facts and not on the severity of the crime which was concluded by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In some situations where there is no scope for any reform, the death penalty can be given as has been held in this case.

Murder and Attempt to Murder

Posted on

This article is written by Pranit Bhagat. He’s currently pursuing his bachelor in laws from ILS, Pune. In this article, he has discussed the terms ‘Murder’ and ‘Attempt to Murder’, and along with this, he has also tried to distinguish between these two terms.

Introduction to ‘Murder’ and ‘Attempt to Murder’

The term ‘Murder’ has been derived from a German word which means ‘secret killing.’ It is defined under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In a layman’s language, murder will be killing a person without the intention of getting caught for the same while an attempt to kill someone (not resulting in the death of that individual) will be considered as an ‘attempt to murder’. The Indian Criminal law- IPC, 1860 looks at the crime of murder as a very heinous one and sets up punishment like a death sentence or life imprisonment by proper discretion of the court. The article has content aimed at briefly explaining the two and the legislations associated with it.

Murder or Culpable Homicide?

Now to understand the concept of murder, first ‘Culpable Homicide’ should be explained. “Homicide” has been derived from Latin where “homo” means “man” and “cide” means “I cut.” Thus, homicide can be explained as a man killing another man. It can be lawful or unlawful. Thus, culpable homicide means causing death through a human agency which is punishable by law. We can say that Culpable homicide is the genus and murder would be its specie. To understand better, Murder as an offence is the aggravated form of Culpable Homicide. Criminal intention or knowledge of the person is an essential element for committing either of the offences, be it Murder or culpable homicide. There is a very thin line of difference between the two offences which is based on the intention and knowledge involved in it. The basic difference lies in the degree of the commission of the said offence. The person will be held accountable according to the degree of the offence that one has committed. Thus, we can say that all murders are culpable homicide but not all culpable homicides are murders. Section 300 of IPC clearly states the difference of when the act committed will fall under culpable homicide and when the act committed will amount to murder. So, a person throwing a knife at any other individual in a feat of anger resulting into death of the person due to stab would be a culpable homicide because even if there were no dark criminal intentions, the ‘person has blood on his hands’ whereas if a person with gun repeatedly shoots some other aiming at chest has a criminal intent of taking his life and it’s a clear case of murder

Provisions governing-

The Indian Penal Code , 1860

Section 299 of IPC:

  • A person is said to commit culpable homicide if he has done an act through which a death is caused.
  • The person had an intention to cause death.
  • Or the intention to cause such a bodily injury which is likely to cause death.
  • Or the knowledge, that the act is likely to cause death.

For example, a person A has been hiding behind a bush and the fact is known to person B, who induces fire deliberately knowing that it may kill A, A even dies due to it, in that case, B has committed an act of culpable homicide and is guilty of it.

Section 300 of IPC and it’s exceptions-

  • With respect to the exceptions, culpable homicide can be considered as murder, if the act through which death is caused is completed.
  • The person had an intention to cause death.
  • The person with an intention to cause such bodily injury to another person, which he knows can cause the death of that person.
  • The person with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
  • The person with the knowledge that the act committed was so dangerous that it in all probability will cause death, or such bodily injury, which may cause death.

For example, a person A shoots another person, B repeatedly in the chest, causing the death of A, such act would be considered as ‘murder’ and will be charged under S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Explanation- Sec. 299 and Sec. 300

Moreover, both S. 299 and 300 are provisions related to deliberate death of an individual by some other individual but since they are so closely related, to understand them better individually, the difference between two must be noted. The degree of intention or the knowledge to cause the death of a person determines the nature of the offence, whether it would fall under the purview of murder or culpable homicide. The Supreme Court has also expressed its regret that any distinction made between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is often lost sight of because a thin line difference makes it very difficult to differentiate and even prove the same. The more the intention considered as grave and indicating confirmation to kill, more becomes an act heinous and considered as murder. Slow poison administered by an individual requires medical knowledge, which also confirms that the person had a whole-hearted intention with a plan to kill. This will be considered as murder but only beating up a person aimlessly resulting in death would be a culpable homicide. Interestingly even in cases where a person is exercising his/her right to private defence against any other attack, while doing so causes the death of the attacker, it will still be a case of culpable homicide and not murder.

There is a very slight difference between the act of committing murder and culpable homicide. Culpable homicide basically means the killing of a human being by another person. There are five exceptions provided in Sec 300 of Indian Penal Code. 

These are the exceptions where death will not amount to murder-

Exception-1: Sudden and grave provocation

Sometimes a person may commit an act which leads to the death of another person due to grave and sudden provocation. Then such a person will be held for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In such a case the person loses his self-control for a moment and commits such an act. The Essentials for this exception to be valid are: 

  1. There must be a provocation 
  2. The provocation must be grave and sudden 
  3. By reason of such grave and sudden provocation, the offender must have been deprived power of self-control. 
  4. The death of the person who gave the provocation or of any other person by mistake or accident must have been caused.

For example, A is informed that his wife has been cheating on him, on the enquiry of the same, A himself catches her in compromising position due to which A suddenly goes and shoots his wife in anger. It will be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Exception- 2: Exceeding the right of private defence

The law contained in this exception is based on the rule that in a case in which law itself empowers an individual to inflict any harm short of death, it ought hardly to visit him with the highest punishment if he inflicts death. The Essentials for this exception to be valid are:

  1. An act must be done in exercise of the right to private defence of person or property 
  2. The Act must have carried out in good faith. 
  3. The person doing the act must have exceeded his right given to him by law and have already caused the death. 
  4.  The act must have been done with premeditation and without any intention of causing more harm than was necessary for self-defence.

For example, in a case of sexual assault faced by a girl, the girl hits the assaulter with a sharp object to protect herself. While doing so, she kills the person. It will be a case of culpable homicide and not murder.

Exception-3: Offence committed by a public servant

This exception shall not apply where the act of a public servant is illegal and unauthorised by law or if he glaringly exceeds the powers entrusted to him by law. The Essentials for this exception to be valid are:

  1. Offence committed by a public servant or by some other person acting in the aid of such public servant, in the advancement of public justice.
  2. Public servant or such other person exceeds the powers given to him by law. 
  3. Death is caused by doing an act which he in good faith believes to be lawful and necessary for the discharge of his duty as such public servant. 
  4.  The act must have been done without any ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.

While handling protests, a police officer is allowed to throw water at the people in order to control them, while doing so a woman continuously walking ahead gets hit with the water pressure, feels terrified and dies on the spot, the officer had no intentions of killing her but it will be the case of culpable homicide and not murder.

Exception- 4: Death caused in sudden fight

By fight here we mean something more than a verbal quarrel. A fight is a combat between two or more person whether with or without weapons. Fight per se is not a palliating circumstance; it must be sudden, nor pre-arranged. Therefore the time gap between the quarrel and fight is very important. The Essentials for this exception are:

  1. Death must be caused in a sudden fight 
  2. Sudden fight must be without any premeditation.
  3. It must occur in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. 
  4. The offender must have not taken undue advantage or must have not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 
  5. It is immaterial as to which party offered the provocation or committed the first assault.
  6. The fight must be with the person killed.

For example, two young men get into a fight as one accuses the other of robbing his car. Completely enraged by the accusation, one starts beating the other and the other replies violently, while doing so one of them is killed, it will be a case of culpable homicide and not murder

Exception-5: Death caused of person consenting to it

Culpable homicide is not considered as murder if the death of a person above the age of eighteen is caused and the risk of death is with his own consent. Then, culpable homicide is not considered murder. The Essentials for this exception are:

  1. The death was caused with the consent of the deceased. 
  2. The deceased was then above 18 years of age  
  3. That such consent was free and voluntary and not given through fear or misconception of facts.

For example, the best example to understand this exception is that of arrow shooting the apple on one’s head. If a person stands with an apple on his head and consents to the other to shoot at the apple, putting his own life at risk, in case dies, shall not be called murder but rather culpable homicide, because the person ( more than 18 years) consented to such risk.

Murder is a Cognizable and Non-bailable offence, triable by Court of Sessions.

Caselaw Reference –

Reg. Vs Govinda (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342: 

In the case of Reg. v. Govinda, a clear distinction was seen between culpable homicide and murder. 

Facts of this case :

According to the facts, there was a fight between the husband and wife and in a fit of anger, the husband knocked his wife. Later, she became unconscious and in order to wake up the wife, he punched her with closed palms but unfortunately, the wife died because of internal bleeding in her brain. Herein, the court held that the man was liable under Section 299 of IPC and not under Section 300 because clearly there was no intention to cause the death of his wife and the act was not grave enough to cause the death of the person on the spot. The accused was liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Difference Between Culpable Homicide and Murder

It is extremely difficult to distinguish between Culpable Homicide and Murder as the end result of both is death but there is a presence of difference to a very subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. The main differences between culpable homicide and murder were laid out and principles were held and formed as: 

1. Culpable homicide is wider than the term murder. Culpable homicide is therefore considered as the genus while as murder is regarded as a species. All murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are not regarded as murder. 

2. Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide.

 3. In murder, the offender has a definite knowledge that the act would result in the death while as in culpable homicide the knowledge is not so definite. 

4. The probability of causing death is higher in murder than culpable homicide.  

Attempt to Murder

The second part of this article deals with Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which talks about attempt to murder. Attempt to murder is a failed shot of a person to kill some other individual and therefore a lot of what is explained in this section depends on the intention and knowledge of the accused and also, the preparation that he takes before committing the crime.

Provisions governing-

Indian Penal Code, 1860

An offence under IPC section 307 must have these two ingredients:

(a) An intention of or knowledge related to the commission of murder;

There are three considerations which appear to be essential to determine whether an act is done within the ambit of section 307- the nature of the act done, the intention or knowledge of accused and the circumstances under which the act is done. The intention or knowledge of the accused is taken into consideration and not the consequences of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The court has to decide on the basis whether the act was done with the intention or knowledge. The accused must have the intention or knowledge and it is a necessary condition to constitute murder. If this ingredient is not established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. The intention has to be gathered from all circumstances of the case like the nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it is used, the motive of the crime, the body part where the injury is inflicted to determine the intention or knowledge (i.e. Mens Rea ) of the accused and not merely from the consequences that have been followed.

(b) The doing of an act towards it.

Only wrong and evil intent is not sufficient to constitute a crime. Some voluntary act or omission must be shown by a man in order to be punishable. An act should be committed which is capable of causing death in the natural and ordinary course of things to commit an offence of “attempt to murder.” 

Illustration: Mixing of poison in food with intent to cause death will be an offence under this section even though if no death occurs.

If the act which is complained of is not capable of causing death then the accused cannot be convicted under this section. For example, the act of pulling an unloaded gun cannot constitute the offence no matter what the accused intention or belief is.

Note-The attempt to murder under section 307 IPC has a lot of similarities with section 324 IPC, which talks about voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons. The offence of attempt to murder is a very grave offence because it is not very different from the offence of murder itself. These two offences have only one major difference that is the death of the victim which is not present under section 307.

Caselaw Reference

Vasan Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 

The Supreme Court held that to justify any conviction under section 307, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The nature of injury caused can often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused but such intention can also be deducted from other circumstances. The court has to see whether the act was committed with the intention or knowledge under circumstances mentioned in this section irrespective of its result. If the accused had the intention to commit murder and in the pursuance of that intention he does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact that the act is penultimate or not, the offence is under section 307 of IPC. An attempt in order to be criminal does not need to be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is an intention with some act in execution of it.  

Attempt to murder is a Cognizable and Non-bailable offence, triable by Court of Sessions.

Conclusion

It is extremely artistic how two terms explained in the above article are so similar and yet so different, the judicial process due to this thin line difference in crimes given in laws makes it a tedious process to prove the convict as guilty. Perceived knowledge of the perpetrators of crime, their professionalism behind such acts, and surprising glitches in the laws put forth by advocates make their positions far ahead of the judiciary. Judiciary often paves the way for landmark judgements when such close call crimes are committed. In any case, the better understanding of laws of such commonly heard crimes is essential and their difference should be noted by people who wish to understand the criminal laws better.

Latest Posts

Archives