IPC 300 Murder
Section 300 deals with cases where culpable homicide is murder. Therefore, an offence can not amount to murder if it falls under the definition of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done. •By an act which the death caused is done with the intention of causing death. When the person caused has an intention to kill the person. Unlike section 299, the intention here falls the specification of the consequences that resulted into death. •With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death. First, there is an intention to cause bodily harm. Second, there is a subjective knowledge that will be likely consequence of the intended injury. The offender knows that bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death of the person. •Injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Under this, the emphasis is on the sufficiency of the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not depends upon the nature of the weapon used. •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 as is likely to cause death, the offence is murder and also 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.
• Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, is deprived of the power of self control by sudden provocation and grave that causes the death any other person by mistake or accident. • If the offender being a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice by doing an act believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty. • If it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight and without the offender having due advantage or acted in a cruel or usual manner. • culpable homicide is not a murder, when the person whose death is cause being above the age of 18 suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent
Clause 1 of this Section says that there is an involvement of an intention of causing death, it may be caused by an illegal omission. When parents neglect to provide the necessity to their children and if it causes death by its consequences, it will be a murder. In state of Karnataka versus Gangadharaiah , the respondent married the deceased in or about the year 6\1971. Since then the respondent used to frequently come home drunk and beat and ill treat the deceased. On the fateful day in the evening of April 17, 1985 the respondent started quarrelling with his wife and when PW 5 tried to intervene the disease sent him back. About 9 p.m. when the quarrel reached a high pitch, the deceased called her neighbour, kala(PW4) and asked him to fetch her mother Narsamma(PW6) who lived nearby. Before they could reach respondent gave a knife blow on the neck of his wife(deceased) which resulted in a severe bleeding injury. On being so assaulted she started running away but fell down in front of house. When Norsamma(PW6) and Kala(PW4) reached they saw witnesses saw accused running away from his house after death of his wife and could be apprehended only after three weeks. There was no material showing that eye witnesses was either inimical or interested witness. It was held that in the light of the above facts and evidence inference can be drawn that the accused alone and nobody else have committed murder of deceased. Therefore accused was held liable for the offence of Murder. Clause 2 of the Section says that the offender knows it would be likely to cause death as well as with an intention of bodily injury. Knowledge on the part of the offender imports certainty and not merely a probability . In Karu Marik v. State of Bihar, the accuse gave a blow with sharp weapon on the deceased chest and when the deceased tried to escape, the accused pulled back her hair and gave two more blows on abdomen and back. It was held that the intention of the accused was to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The accused was held liable for the conviction of murder. Clause 3 of this Section says that where a man intentionally inflicts bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, he would be liable for murder In Rajwant Singh case, the accused covered the mouth of the deceased with adhesive plaster, tied a hankerchief over the plaster, plugged his nostrils with cotton wool soaked in chloroform, tied his hands and legs with rope and deposited him in a shallow drain with his own shirt put under his head as a pillow. It was held that the acts of the accused were covered by clause 3 of section 300 and they were guilty of murder. In a case the accused inflicted a stab with a sharp pointed weapon which entered the upper part of the deceased's stomach causing rupture of it. He was held liable for Murder. In Amar Munna Singh Suryawanshi vs State of Maharashtra the accused, the husband and his wife were living with their children in one room and besides their children only husband and wife were present in house at the time of occurence. The husband poured kerosene oil on the body of the wife and lit fire was proved. Husband failed to prove as to why he was absconding for about a month after the incident was held under the above circumstances husband must be held to be aware that such was likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature. There was no evidence that death was the result of accident. Therefore, conviction of accused for murder was upheld. Clause 4 of the Section says that if an act is done with such an knowledge to cause death, without any excuse, the offence is murder. In Budhilal v. State of Uttarakhand, The knowledge of the offender of the probability of death of a person approximates to a practical certainty.
REFERENCES: INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BY PROF S.N. MISRA