The Supreme Court gave benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 to the accused. A brief perusal of all these cases would reveal that in all these cases there was a sudden and instantaneous altercation which led to the accused inflicting a single blow to the deceased with a sharp weapon. And it must be unequivocal. In light of these contentions, it is necessary to look into the wordings of the relevant provision. The question, so far as the intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict and injury of particular degree of seriousness, but where he intended or inflict the injury in the question; and once the existence of the injury is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. It is evident that the cause of death is poisoning and effect of poisoning is to cause instant death.
It is very fascinating to see the development of the reasoning behind application of this section in murder cases. В is by this provocation excited to violent rage. If probation was denied, and you were sentenced to State Prison, then you are not eligible for a reduction to a misdemeanor, or an expungement pursuant to penal code section 1203. He saw three accused persons holding the deceased and Arun Kumar strangulating the deceased and after some time she died. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z.
Jha, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, severely criticized the judgments of both the Courts below, the High Court as well as the 5 Trial court and pointed out that there were number of discrepancies to be found in the prosecution case which had remained unexplained. The appellant also brought to the information of Mr. They covered his mouth with adhesive plaster and tied a handkercheif over it and plugged his nostrils with cotton soaked in chloroform. Section 302 Punishment for murder. According to the medical report none of the injuries was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Culpable homicide is a genus, whereas murder is a species. Therefore, an act coming under clause 1 of Section 300 will also fall under clause 1 of Section 299, and in both instances, it will be culpable homicide amounting to murder.
Even the name of the informer was admittedly not there in the case diary. We have, therefore, to decide as to whether the prosecution has in fact proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In another case of Willie William Slaney vs. According to his version, he had seen Arun Kumar running from the house of his sister and expressing that his sister was murdered. The points to be proved 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.
The deciding opinion in such case is always the decision of the apex court which ruled that it is not at all mandatory for the accused to be convicted under this section, that he does not have to cause life threatening injury on the victim, his intention, knowledge and the preparation that he took will be the factors that will be looked into for his conviction. In Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years of age, to commit suicide. Defence counsel criticized this evidence on the ground that it was too general in nature. Thus, intention is only linked up and is restricted to the causing of the bodily injury and not to the knowledge or intention of causing such bodily injury that is sufficient to cause bodily injury that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Effect of acquittal of some accused on conviction of others Though section 34 is not added to section 302, the accused had clear notice that they were being charged with the offence of committing murder in pursuance of their common intentions to put an end to the life of deceased. Why was the room not inspected and examined so as to ascertain the condition of the door, height of the ceiling fan, condition of the stopper chitkani etc? Now police does not want an accused to escape punishment and therefore builds a strong case.
The doctor said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the night they caught hold of the deceased who was the Lt. She was persistently brainwashed by A3 who became her husband and then the father of her child and her helplessness in escaping from the cobweb of Sivarasan and company. Anticipatory bail is a complete protection against an arrest. In the course, accused took out a knife and stabbed deceased on right of side of chest.
Nobody becomes a suspect on filing for anticipatory bail. Explanation:- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. In that case the Assistant Sessions judge has to decide the matter and he does not have the power to sentence the accused for more than 10 years according to the procedure laid down by the code. He did not know where they went. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead.
From the evidence on record, it is very clear that the appellant intended to cause death. Since the bullet hit the deceased below the knee, it was contended that the intention of the accused was only to frighten the deceased or cause grievous hurt and not to kill him. He was granted special leave to the Supreme Court on the following: Issue: On the finding of High Court what offence is made out as having been committed by the petitioner Arguments advanced: It was argued with much circumlocution that the facts set out above do not disclose an offence of murder because the prosecution has not proved that there was an intention to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. There has to be a fight. And is the nature of injury important to convict a person under this section? These are purely objective facts and leave no room for inference or deduction and to that extent the enquiry is objective; but when it comes to the question of intention, that is subjective to the offender and it must be proved that he had an intention to cause the bodily injury that is found to be present.
These observations of Vivian Bose, J. Section 300 3 : A General Overview The section provides that, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused: Is done with an 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. It is also contended that the scope of judicial review is for limited purpose and that cannot be used to re-appreciate the evidence recorded in Court Martial proceedings to arrive at a different conclusion. Gandhi sustained injuries and fell down and succumbed to her injuries same day at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. 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, or- 2ndly 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- 3rdly 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- 4thly 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. Blood stained article Presence of blood stains on floor of room of house and the shawl by themselves are not such circumstances to establish the guilt of accused, grant of benefit of doubt proper; Ramesh Chandra Sao v. A draws out a pistol.
In his report, he says that number of persons, many men and women were present. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death. As regards the first contention, the High Court has observed that as the appellant was informed of all the allegations put forth against him at the time of Court Martial proceedings, the charge framed against the appellant cannot be said to be vague. Reasoning and decision: The court said that actual reading of this section infers that it is not enough to prove that the injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature but it must be in addition shown that the injury found to be present was the same injury that was intended to be inflicted. How is this intention determined? A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z.