1

UNIT – III
Indian Penal Code

WHAT IS CULPABLE HOMICIDE? UNDER WHAT

CIRCUMSTANCES CULPABLE HOMICIDE DOES NOT AMOUT TO
MURDER? /
OR
EXPLAIN THE INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE OF MURDER? WEAN
CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTS TO MURDER?
OR
DISTINCTION BETWEEN, CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER?

CULPABLE HOMICIDE ;( SECTION 299, 301 AND 304

Sec :- 299 :- Defines culpable homicide as:- “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”
The term homicide comes from Latin words “ homo” and “cide”. Home means
‘man’ and cide means ‘I cut’ thus homicide means causing death of a human being
by a another human being’

ELEMENTS :- (Ingredients):-

To constitute the offence of culpable homicide the following 3 elements are to be

satisfied:-

1) Causing of death of a human being.

2) Such death must have been caused by doing an act.
3) The act must have been done:
i) With the intention of causing death, or
ii) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or
iii) With the knowledge that the doer is likely by such act to cause death

1) Causing of death of a human being:- death means death of human being. It

does not include the death of an unborn child, such as a child in the mother’s
womb.
2) Such death must have been caused by doing an act:- death may be caused
in a number of ways; such as;
a. Poisoning,

1
 2

b. Starving,
c. Striking
d. Drowning,
e. Communicating some shocking news, etc,.
Death caused by effect of words:- death may also be caused by effect of words
such as by making some communication to another which caused excitement which
results in death although it would be difficult to prove that the person’s who spoke
the words, anticipated from them an effect which except under very peculiar
circumstances and in very peculiar constitutions no word produce.
Illustrations:-
1. A with the intention or knowledge aforesaid, relates some exciting news to B
who is in a critical stage of a dangerous illness; A will be liable of culpable
homicide,
2. A with the intention or knowledge aforesaid, gives B his choice whether B
will kill himself, or suffer torture; B kills himself by taking poison, A would
be liable for culpable homicide.

3).The act must have been done:

i) With the intention of causing death:- Intention means the design (desire) of
doing an act. Every act is having its own consequence.
ii) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death:- the intention of the offender may not be to cause death, it would be sufficient
if he intended to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death. The
connection between the ‘act’ and the death caused by the act must be direct and
though not immediate it must not be too remote.
The expression ‘intention’ to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
merely means an intention to cause a particular injury, which injury is, or turns out
to be, one likely to cause death. It is not the death itself which is intended, nor the
effect of injury. It is not necessary that’s the consequences of the injury are foreseen,
it would be sufficient that there is an intention to cause injury, which injury is likely
to cause death.
iii) with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death:- knowledge
is a strong word and imports a certainty and not merely a probability. Here
knowledge refers to the personal knowledge of the person who does the act.
In capable homicide, the consequence is death. Knowledge is an awareness of
the consequences of the act.

2
 3

Illustrations:-

a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death or
with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused, z, believing the ground
to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed, A has committed the offence of culpable
homicide.

b) A knows z to be behind a bush, B does not know it. A intending to cause, or

knowing it to be likely to cause Zs death induces B to fire at the bush, B fires and
kills z, Here B may be offence of culpable homicide.

Firstly:-To constitute culpable homicide, It must be proved that the victim is dead.
Secondly; - the death is caused according to the means alleged by the prosecution
thirdly; - the accused acted intentionally or knowingly.

There are 3 species of mens rea in culpable homicide as follows:-

1) An intention to cause death.

2) An intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death and
3) Knowledge death is likely to happen.

Two types of culpable homicide:-

1) Lawful or justifiable simple homicide

It includes several cases falling under the general exceptions. Such as:-
1) Mistake (76 to 79 sec)
2) Judicial acts (77 & 78 sec)
3) Accident (sec 80)
4) Necessity and compulsion (sec 81)
5) Infancy (sec 82 & 83)
6) Insanity (sec 84)
7) Drunkenness (sec 85 & 86)
8) Consent (sec 87 to 93) and
9) Right of private defence (sec 96 to 106)

3
 4

II) Unlawful or Excusable homicide

It includes-
a) Culpable homicide or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (299)
b) Murder or homicide amounting to murder (sec 300)
c) Rash or negligent homicide (sec 304 A)
d) Suicide (sec 305 & 306)

Explanation:-
Explanation 1:-a person who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have
caused his death.
Explanation 2:- where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such
bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused his death, although by resorting to
prospering to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been
prevented.
Explanation 3:- The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not
homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause its death of a living child,
if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have
breathed or been completely born.

Punishment :- Section 304

Section 304 provides for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.
1. Culpable homicide does not amount to murder and act was done with
intention. (Clause 1) life imprisonment or Imprisonment for 10 years and fine
or both. Clause 2) life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years and fine or
both.)
2. Culpable homicide does not amount to murder and act was done without
intention. Clause 3) imprisonment for 10 years and fine And fine or both.

Case Laws :
State of up-vs-Ram Sagar Yadav;
Facts : In this case, the police arrested one Brijlal under the false charges of dacoit
and was beaten to death.
Judgement : The Supreme court held that it amounted to culpable homicide under
section 304.

Kalim Abdulla Hafiz – V- Maharashtra State;

4
 5

Facts : In this case, the accused stabbed on the abdomen of the deceased with knife
for 2 times, After the surgical operation, the deceased survived for 10 days and died.
The Doctor / surgeon opined that the injury was dangerous and sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause.
Judgment: The second blow by the accused immediately after the first blow
indicates his intention to cause such bodily injury likely to cause death.
The Supreme Court convicted the accused under part I and not under part II of see
304.

MURDER

Explain the Ingredients of the offence of murder under Sec 300

Sec 300 :
1) Except in the cases herein after excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if its act
by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or
2) Secondly – If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the
offenders knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom be harm is
caused or
3) 3rd ly : It is 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 foresaid or
4) 4th ly : 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.

Illustrations.

a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence, a commits

murder.
b) A intentionally gives Z a sword cut or club – wound sufficient to cause a death of
a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of
murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.

c) A without any excuse fires a loaded, canon into a crowd of persons and kills one
of them. A is guilty of murder, although he my not have had a premeditated design
to kill any particular individual.

5
 6

The term ‘murder is derived from the Germanic word ‘morth’ which means ‘secrete
killing’ murder is a more serious offence than the, culpable homicide.
Punishment for murder : Sec 302 whoever commits murder shall be punished with
death or imprisonment for life and shall also liable to fine.
1. Death (Bachan Singh V State of Punjab:- the sc ruled that death sentence
should not be passed except in “rarest of the rare cases”)or
2. Life imprisonment and
3. fine

Culpable homicide does not amount to murder:-

Or
Exception to sec 300:-

Under sec 300 IPC there are following exceptions when the culpable homicide does
not amount to murder
1) Grave and sudden provocation
2) Exceeding the right of private defence.
3) Public servant exceeding the right.
4) Sudden fight
5) Contest

1) Grave and Sudden provocation:-

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
Grave and sudden provocation must be done under the following points:-
• Immediate impulse of provocation.
• Provocation must be grave and sudden.
• To deprive the accused of the power of self-control.
• Provocation should be such as to upset, not merely a hasty and hot-tempered
or hyper-sensitive person, but one of ordinary sense and calmness.
• Test of “grave and sudden provocation” is whether a reasonable man,
belonging to the same clauses of society as the accused, placed in the situation
in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-
control.

The grave and sudden provocation is not available on following reasons:-

6
 7

Or
Exception to grave and sudden provocation.
1) That the provocation is not bought or voluntarily provoked by the offends as
an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
2) That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law,
or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public
servant.
3) That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of
the right of private defence.
Whether the provocation was grave and sudden, enough to prevent the offence from
amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations:-
a) A under the passion of influence by a provocation given by a Z intentionally kills
y, Z’s child. This is murder, In as much as the provocation was not given by the
child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing
an act caused by the provocation.
b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A.A on its provocation, fires a pistol at
y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him but
out of sight, A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable
homicide.

Care laws:-
1) Emperor V Balku:-
Facts: The accused and his wife’s, sister’s, husband were sleeping on a cot in the
verandah. In the adjoining room, the wife of the accused was sleeping. In the right
the wife’s sister’s husband got up, went into the room of the accused’s wife and
bolted the door from the inside. The accused also got up and began to peep through
a chink in the door. The accused saw that his wife and wife’s sister’s husband were
busy in sexual intercourse. He come back and lay on the cot.
When the sexual intercourse was over to accused wife’s sister’s husband came
back and lay by the side of the accused and after some time began dozing. At this,
the accused got up, stabbed him several times with a knife which was with him
causing his death.

Judgment:- It was found that the accused had not gone anywhere in search of the
knife. The accused was held guilty of the offence of culpable homicide under sec
304 and not of the offence of murder under sec 302.
The time taken by the accused b/w his seeing of sexual intercourse or stabbing
was not held as material for converting the offence into murder.

7
 8

2) K.M Nanavati V State of Maharashtra;

Facts:-
Nanavati the accused in this case was naval officer, His wife by name syleria had
illicit contract with the deceased ( Prem Bhagvan Das Aheja) when the accused
questioned his wife for indifferent attitude towards him, she made a confession that
she had illicit contract with the deceased. The accused went to the residence of the
deceased and told him that he would give divorce to his wife and asked him to marry
her, for which he (deceased) refused. The accused brought a revolver from the ship
and shot him dead and surrendered himself to the police.
Judgment:-
• The trial court sentenced the accused to death under sec 302 and the same
was confirmed by the H.C.
• On appeal the SC altered the conviction to life imprisonment.
• His family members submitted mercy petition to the president of India
under article 72 of constitution. Before the decision of the Petition,
Nanavati accepted the conviction of life imprisonment.

3) Murgi Munda V Emperor:-

Facts:- The accused was in love with a woman. He later on found his beloved doing
sexual intercourse with another man. He killed both of them.
Judgement:- It was held that guilty of murder. He can not claim the same protection
as is available to a husband.

2). Exceeding the right of private defence:-

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise is in good faith of
the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him
by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right
of defence without premeditation and without any intention of doing more than is
necessary for the purpose of such defence.

Case law:-
1) Karamat Hereain V Emperor:-
Facts:- In his case, the accused. In order to save/protect his sister from merciless
beating by her husband intervened and killed him.
Judgement:- It was held that the accused was entitled to the right of private defence
under such circumstances.

2) R V Rose:-

8
 9

Facts:- The accused shot and killed his fathers, whom he believed to be cutting the
throat of his mother.
Judgment:- The accused was allowed the right of private defence to protect his
mother against his father’s act.

3) Gopi V King :-
Facts:- In this case sub-inspector proposed a search contrary to law (sec 165 crpc)
The accused pushed him out to prevent the search.
Judgement:- The accused was held not guilty of any offence since the sub-inspector
did not act on good faith.

III. Public servant or a person aiding the public servant exceeding his power or
Public servant exceeding his power:-
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant acting for
the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and
caused death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and
necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-
will towards the person whose death is caused.
Ex:- section 76 and 79.

IV. Sudden fight:-

It the death is caused in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel or in a sudden fight
without premeditation and the offender has neither taken any undue advantage nor
acted in a cruel or unusual manner, will this be case of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
If the offender has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner,
he cannot get the benefit of exception.4.
A sudden fight implies mutual provocation and blows on each side.

Case law:-
1) Muthu V State:-
Facts:- The accused who was working in a waste-paper merchant shop opened the
shop and was arranging the articles kept inside the shop. The deceased who used to
collect the waste-papers from the road side collected waste-papers and card-board
boxes and the threw them inside the shop. The accused got angry and shouted at
deceased and pulled his hair. There upon, the deceased pushed him. The accused
there after took a knife from the top of the table in the stop and stabbed the deceased
who fell down and died.
Judgement:- The accused was held guilty of committing the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.

9
 10

Justice Markandey Katju the S.C Observed:-

“In our opinion, throwing waste and rubbish inside the house or shop of somebody
is certainly a grave and sudden provocation everybody wishes to keep his premises
neat and clean and is likely to loose his self-control in such a situation.
The incident in question accused in a sudden fight and heat of a passion by a
sudden quarrel without the appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exceptions
1 and 4 and the case comes under sec 304 I.P.C
The act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without
any intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as were to cause death, the
offence came under part II of sec 304

V. Consent:-
If the person whose death is caused, is above 18 years age and suffers the death or
takes the risk of death with is own consent, it will be a case of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

Rajesh R Nair V State of Kerala

Facts:- In a suicide pact, the accused aged 19 years killed his sister with her consent
and then his mother by strangulating her and throwing stone on their heads. The
accused could not be successful in his bid to end his life when he jumped on the
water. It was held that the case would fall under exception 5 to sec 300 he was
convicted under sec 304 part II.

Culpable Homicide, when amounts to murder:-

Culpable homicide amounts to murder provided the following two conditions are
satisfied.
Killing must be accompanied by intention or knowledge specified in sec 300 such
as
clause (1) (a) except in a cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide for murder,
it the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or.
Clause 2 ( b) it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as to offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of person to whom harm is caused, or
Clause 3) If it is done with intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient on the ordinary course of
nature to cause death, or
clause 4) d) If the person committing the act knows that it is too imminently
dangerous that it must, in our probability, cause death, or such bodily injury

10
 11

as is likely to cause death and commits such act without any excuse for incur
rings the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.

Case Law :
1) Surershan Kumar Vs-State of Delhi:
Facts : In his case the accused caused death of a lady, named mayadevi, by
pouring acid on her face. The reason was, she refused to marry him.
Judgment: - As the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
death, it was held that it amounted to murder (clause 3 of sec 300)

2. A.C. Lage-V-State of Bombay :-

In the instant case, a rich lady traveled along with her family doctor in a Train
for better treatment. The doctor administered poison causing her death.
Judgment: - He was held guilty of murder and sentenced to death under sec 302.

3).The public prosecutor – v- Suryanarayana Murthy;

Facts: - In the instant case, ‘A’ took some life polices in the name of ‘B’ with the
object of enchasing the life polices. A with and intention to kill ‘B’ gave some
sweetmeat to ‘B’ ‘B’ ate a portion of sweetmeat at ‘A’ s brother – in – law’s
house and threw away the remainder. Two children of ‘A’ s brother-in-law ate
it and died But B survived.
Judgment:- The court held ‘A’ is guilty of murder of children and attempt to murder
of ‘B’

4).Poja Ram - vs – State of Rajasthan :-

This is a clear case of wife’s murder by her husband and the whom testified
that the husband and wife used to quarrel very after and on a particular day
the accused in the morning inflicted injury on the head of sunder kaur by
saying that she had administered poison to him previously in the night. The
handle of the Forshi broke and thereafter the accused took up a lathi which
was lying nearby and inflicted 4 more injuries on the head and neck of the
wife who died.
Judgment:- The accursed was sentenced to life imprisonment under sec 302
I.P.C.

Distinction b/w culpable homicide and murder ?

Culpable homicide Murder

1. Section 299 1. Section 300

11
 12

2. Culpable homicide whoever causes 2. Expect in the case hereinafter

death by doing an act with the excepted, culpable homicide is
intention of causing death, or with the murder. If the act by which the death
intention of causing such bodily is caused is done with intention of
injury as is likely to cause death, or causing death.
with a knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide
3. Death is likely result 3. Death is the most probable result
4. Less serious, when compared to 4. More serious than culpable
murder homicide
4. Every homicide is not murder 6. Every murder is primarily a
(it may or may not amount to culpable homicide on fulfilling
murder) certain conditions + amounts to
5. If it comes under 5 exception murder
7. It should not come under 5
exceptions.
6. The maximum punishment is life 6. The maximum punishment is death
imprisonment (under sec 304) or 10 sentence or life imprisonment and
years imprisonment or both fine and liable to fine.
imprisonment

RASH OR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE OR CAUSING DEATH BY

NEGLIGENCE:-

Sec 304 – A :- Causing death by Negligence :- whoever causes the death of any
person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years or with fine, or with both.

12
 13

Ingredients:
The section has the following ingredients:
1) The death of any person is caused by a rash or negligent act.
2) The act causing death does not amount to culpable homicide
The expression ‘Rashness’ means an act done with the consciousness of a risk
that evil consequence will follow (it is an act done with the knowledge that evil
consequence will follow but with the hope that it will not). \
The term ‘negligence’ means breach of a legal duty to take care, which results
in injury / damage untried by the wrong doer”.
Rashness is a very high degree of negligence. There is no intention of
knowledge to cause death. The person (a accused / offender) to be liable under
sec 304 A. it should be proved/ established that the death is caused by a rash or
negligent act. Further the injury/death is proximate and is the direct result of the
negligent act; contribution negligence is no defence in criminal law.
• Sec 304 – A shall not apply to cases, when there is an intention to cause
death or knowledge that death is likely to be caused by the act.
• A negligent act is an act which a reasonable man would not do in the
circumstances attending the case.
• A rash act is also a negligent act but a negligent act is not necessarily a
rash act
• The negligence is a genus of which the rashness is the species.

Case Laws:
1. Juggan Khan – V – State of MP.
Facts : A homeopathic doctor gave to a patient dhatura leaves and 24
drops of strammonium without studying its effects, the patient whereof
died.
Judgement : The doctor was held guilty under section 304A because
he could not be laid to have the knowledge that he was by such act
likely to cause death.

2. Tapti Prasad – V – Emperor :

Facts: Tapti Prasad the accused in this case was Assistant station master. There
was a collision of passenger train and goods train caused by the signaling of the
accused. The collision claimed many lives.
Judgement : The accused was convicted under sec 304 A & Sec 101 of Railway
Act by the Trial Court and on appeal, the session court and H.C. confirmed the
conviction.

13
 14

3. B.W. Pathe – V – State of Maharastra : Principles : According to the

Supreme Court “Criminal Negligence means gross and culpable Neglect or
failure to exercise reasonable and proper care which is to imperative duty of the
caused to exercise.
* To make accused liable he must be found grossly negligent or reckless
and mere a mistake of judgment or intellectual defect and would not be
sufficient for making a man criminally liable.
* It is the duty of a driver to drive vehicle with utmost care and caution.
It is accident occurs while driving a vehicle. It is duty of a driver to
explain the conduct justifying is act otherwise he shall be deemed
driving negligently or rashly.

* In one case Dr. Kaviraj not a qualified surgeon, cut the internal piles
of man, by an ordinary knife causing death of the patient, he was guilty
under his section.

4. Chander sain V the state:- Mini-bus was driven at a high speed on a narrow road,
not falling within normal route which caused a fatal accident, if was a rash and
negligent driving liable to be convicted under sec 304-A.

5. Bijuli Swain – V – State Orilla : It was said that solely on the fact that some
persons were injured, the driving could not be said to be rash and negligent.

6. Rattan Singh V State of Punjab.:-

Facts:- Due to rash and negligent driving of a Motor vehicle by the accused a
scooterist was killed.
Judgment:-he was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment

7. Bhimabhai Kalabhai V State of Gujarat:-

Facts of the case:- . the petitioner constructed a water tank for the convenience of
village people.
. the tank was filled with water but it collapsed causing death of seven persons and
injuries to eight persons.
. the tank collapsed because it could not bear the pressure of water.
. the material used in the construction was of a low quality and below the prescribed
standard.
Judgment:- the lower court convicted the accused under Sec 304-A and
338(causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the
IPC.
Accused failed revision application to HC, same was rejected.

14
 15

8. Shankar Balkirshna V Emp,.

Facts of the case:- the accused was Assistant Station Master working on
the “line clear and caution message” system.
. he wrote a conditional note and left it on the counter that the line would
be clear on the arrival of a particular passenger train but it was not signed
by him.
A guard of the train waiting for the Assistant Station Master entered his
room and found the certificate, took it out of the book and without reading
its contents passed on the driver of the train after appending his signature
and gave a signal to start the train.
The result was that the train started to run and it collided between two
stations with a passenger train.
Judgment:- TC held guilty under this section .
HC his conviction was quashed based on following reasons:-
1. This case lays down that simply because there involves more loss of human
lives, the court should not fail to judge the degree of negligence sufficient for
liability.
2. It was held that to hold a man guilty, he must be found grossly negligent or
reckless and mere a mistake of judgment or intellectual defect would not be
sufficient for making a man criminally liable.

DOWRY DEATH. SECTION, 304-B:

Section 304-B;- Dowry Death:-

Clause 1):- Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury
or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years or her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to currently
or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection
with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “Dowry Death” and such
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

15
 16

Explanation :
For the purposes of this sub-section ‘Dowry’ shall have the same meaning as in
section 2 of the Dowry prohibition Act 1961.
Cause 2):- Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than seven (7) years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life.
A presumption as to dowry death as against the accused has also been inserted
on the evidence Act after Sec 113 as Sec 113 B.

Presumption to Dowry Death

“when the question is whether a person has committed Dowry death of a women
and it is a shown that soon before her death such women had been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for
dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Soon before her death : The words “Soon before her death” do not necessarily
mean immediately before her death. It is an elastic expression and can refer to a
period either immediately before death of the or within deceased or with in few
days or few weeks before death.
When the deceased died seven months after her marriage and she was
harassed for dowry 10 or 15 days before her death, the ingredients of sec 304 B
IPC were held to be satisfied.
Case laws :
1) Mulak Raj – V – Satish Kumar
Facts : In his case, the deceased and the accused were wife and husband
respectively. One and half years after their marriage, the deceased wife aged 20
years was found dead with burnings. The accused pleaded that it was a suicide.
It was detected from the postmortem report that the deceased died due to
constriction (as phyxia) with an intention to conceal the evidence. Kerosene was
poured on the body and was burnt.
Judgement : The trial court having on the post – mortem report and
circumstantial of evidence convicted the accused to life imprisonment.
HC:- On appeal he was acquitted by the high court as there was no witness.
SC:- Supreme court confirmed the conviction of the trial court.

Andhra Pradesh v Yadla Ranga Rao and others.

Facts:- Deceased was married to A-1. At the time of her marriage, her father
who was a teacher gave a cash dowry of Rs.15,000/- and jewels worth fifteen
thousand rupees besides gift of five acres of land and a house site in the marriage
ritual called as “Pasupukumkuma”
Gift of land to the deceased was in the form of ‘stridhana’ for her maintenance.

16
 17

After 3 or 4 months of marriage A-1 started to press his wife to execute in his
favour a deed of the land and house site gifted to her by her father but she resisted.
A-1 was a postman and he withheld some letters sent by her father. He also did
not deliver an entrance card to her sister for her polytechnic entrance
examination.
One day, she got all the letters and delivered to her father resulting annoyance
to A-1 and his parents A-2 and A-3 drove her from their house with a stern
warning to restore these letters.
Being so harassed, she committed suicide by consuming poison.
Judgment:- TC:- convicted the 3 accused for an offence under sec 498A, but
acquitted them of the offence under sec 304B.
HC upheld the decision of TC with respect to A-1 and acquitting A-2 and A-
3 (parents of A-1)
SC:- on apple SC by the parents of the deceased and also by the state of Andhra
Pradesh, the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 was upheld on the basis of appreciation of
evidence. And A-1 was, However held guilty of offence of abetment of suicide
also under sec 306.
Sc with 3 bench decision through justice D.M Dharmadhidari held:-
Soon before her death : The words “Soon before her death” she was subjected
to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. There is no
evidence on record to show that the land was demanded as dowry. There by the
father to the deceased in marriage ritual as Pasupukumma.
The harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the husband after the
marriage to force her to transfer the land in his name was not in connection with
any demand of dowry. The sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs 500/- was however enhanced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs 20.000/- to be paid as compensation to the parents of the deceased.

For the purposes of this Section “Dowry Death’ shall have the same meaning
as n Sec. 304.B of the Indian Penal Code.
In this connection reference should necessarily be made to Sec. 498.A also
subsequently inserted in the IPC. Which defines “Cruelty by husband or relatives
of husband”

Pawan Kumar V State of Haryana.

Facts:- after few days of marriage, the demand of scooter and fridge was made
by the husband’s family-members and when it was not met it led to the repetitive
and maltreatment of the deceased, wife.
Evidence:- the evidence on record showed that within a few days after the
marriage, the deceased was tortured, maltreated and harassed for not bringing the

17
 18

aforesaid articles in the marriage. The deceased died to burn injuries as she
committed suicide by setting herself on fire.
Argument:- in defence, there was neither any demand of dowry nor was there
any agreement at the time of marriage which is an essential ingredient to
constitute an offence under dowry, death in terms of definitions of ‘dowry’ as
given under sec 2 of ht3e Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 hence no offence under
sec 304-B. and guilt should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

State of Rajasthan V Jaggu Ram:-

Facts:-
* The deceased died within one and half years of her marriage. She was
subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law immediately after her marriage, that she did not bring
sufficient dowry.
• The harassment continued till her death.
• She died at her in-laws place.
• The allegation was that she was killed by burning with kerosene and then
cremating her.
• The lathi was recovered at the instance of the father of the deceased.
• The husband of the deceased and the father-in-law and mother-in-law of
the deceased were prosecuted under sec 498A, 304B and sec 201(causing
disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen
offender).
• The denied the charges the he had gone out of the village.
Judgment:-
Trial court:-
• TC held that deceased had died due to injuries within seven years of her
marriage. He rejected the defence theory that the deceased was suffering
from epilepsy and she died due to injuries suffered because during the buts
of fit, her head collided against the door of the house.
• Father-in-law and mother-in-law was convicted under
a. 304B for 7 years
b. Sec 498A for 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine 500/-
c. Sec 201 for 1 year rigorous imprisonment and 500/- fine. And all the
sentences should run together or concurrently.
High Court:-
• Rajasthan Single Judge acquitted Father-in-law and mother-in-law under
sec 304B. and conviction was upheld under sec 498A.
Supreme Court:-

18
 19

• Held that the HC committed serious illegality in acquitting the Father-in-

law and mother-in-law of the charge under sec 304B.
• HC ignored the most important that the deceased suffered injuries in a
dwelling unit belonging to her in-laws in their presence and she died due
to those injuries and defence failed to offer any satisfactory explanation
for the injuries on the head of the deceased.
• The SC held it to be a fit case for the application of section 106 evidence
act and when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person,
he burden to prove that fact is upon him.
• SC upheld the decision of TC, and Acquitted A-1 was acquitted giving
him the benefit of doubt.

Section 498.A:
“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women subjects
to cruelty shall be punished with Imprisonment for a term which may extend to
3 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation; — for the purposes of this Section, Cruelty
Means:
a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to life or limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman or
b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to
is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.
ABETMENT OF SUICIDE of child or insane person : SEC 305

Sec 305, Abetment of suicide of child or insane person:- If any person

under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot,
or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for
life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and shall be liable to fine.

The word ‘Abetment’ means commission of an offence on the advice or

instigation of another”.

The person who abets is called ‘Abettor’ whereas, the term ‘suicide’ means
putting an end to one’s own life”. Suicide is a self inflicted homicide to the

19
 20

expression Abetment of suicide denotes” a person, who instigates another to

commit suicide.
The person (Abettor), who abets a person under 18years of age or an insane or
delirious persons or an idiot or an intoxicated person is punishable under sec 305
IPC with death or imprisonment for life, or 10 years imprisonment and fine.

Sec 306 :- Abetment of suicide :- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Case Laws :
1) Surinder Kumar V – State of Punjab :
Facts : A girl was compelled to be photographed with one of the accused
intending thereby to show that she had acquaintance with him. He was asked
to marry him. She was asked to marry him or else the wouid be kidnapped or
she should die herself. The girl committed the suicide and left a suicide note
to his father describing the reason for it.

Judgement:-
The accused were held not guilty under his section as their intention in taking the
photograph was to blackmail her for remarriage with one of them or for illicit
intercourse.

2) Sanju V State of M.P:-

Facts:- Appellant was the brother of the wife of the deceased. The sister of the
appellant was living with her parents. The appellant advised the deceased to take
his wife to her matrimonial home and treat her properly. the appellant threatened
the parents of the deceased that the complaint would be filed under sec 498 A to
avoid the police action, the mother of the deceased said to the deceased to bring
his wife but when he went to bring his wife, her brother and others abused him
and he returned alone. Next day, it was found that the deceased had committed
suicide by hanging.
The appellant was charged under sec 306. The prosecution version was that the
appellant had said to the decreased to go and die.
Judgement:- instigation it by itself does not constitute the ingredient of. The
word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable
action or to stimulate or incite. ‘Mens rea’ is an essential element of instigation.

20
 21

The words uttered in a quarrel or the words immediately uttered cannot be said
to be the words uttered with mens rea. The deceased was found hanged two days
after quarrel which was not the proximate or directs result of abusive language of
the appellant. So accused cannot be convicted under this section.

Raj Kumar v State of Punjab:-

Facts:-
• Sita bebi was he wife of rajinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar was employed
in the shop of Raj Kumar. Sita Debi and Raj Kumar had tense relations as
her husband, Rajinder Kumar did not come to his house and sita bedi used
to say that Raj Kumar was the main person in creating bitterness between
her and her husband.
• One day she went to the shop of Raj Kumar and asked her husband to come
back to the matrimonial home otherwise she would burn herself.
• Rajinde Kumar and Raj Kumar both said to her that she could do what she
liked but he would not go back.
• Thereupon she put kerosene on her body and by a match-stick she set
herself on fire.
• Rajinder Kumar and Raj Kumar did not try to provide her medical aid in
the injured state.
Judgment:- TC convicted under sec 306 read with 107.
HC:- quashed the conviction and held them not guilty.
Principles:- Omission does not mean a simple omission but an illegal
omission. Is illegal if a person is bound by law to do an act and he omits to do
it. There in no such Indian law that a person witnessing another committing a
crime must stop him from doing so.

3) Bhagwan Das V Kartar Singh and others:-

Facts :- The prosecution case was that the deceased shobha was married to one
mangal singh on 23.1.92 and the committed suicide by hanging herself on 2 nd
march 2000. She did not leave any suicide note. It was alleged that she was being
taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry. Her harassment also was being done
for not giving birth to any child which continued till 1999 when she gave birth to
a girl child and shortly after the birth or girl child her husband was paralyzed in
an accident and she was also taunted for giving birth to a girl child and thus
bringing had luck to family.
Judgment:- The charges were famed under sec 306/34 IPC against Father-in-
law, mother-in-law and two devours of the deceased shobha.

21
 22

H.C. set aside the charges under sec 306/34. But directed framing of charges
under sec 498-A/34 IPC.
Supreme Court: - The accused cannot be convicted under this section.
Principles:- supreme court held. It happens that there are disputes and discards
in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in
laws but it would not by itself or without something more attract sec 306 IPC.
Read with sec 107 IPC. Mere harassment if wife by husband due to difference
per se does not attract sec 306 read with sec 107 IPC. If wife commits suicide. It
the suicide is due to demand or dowry soon before her death sec 304-B IPC may
be attracted.
Illustration
A, a woman prepared to commit sathi in the presence of B, C and others who
stood around and encouraged her. B, C and the rest are liable for the offence
of abetment of suicide by A. in

Brij Lal vs. Prem Chand. AIR 9189 SC 1661.

Facts;
The accused prem Chand was an advocate . He married veena Rani a bank
employee the deceased in this case in 1973. The accused was constantly
demanding money from the deceased and also beating her frequently. One day
the accused went to the extent of saying that the deceased wife could go to hell
but he should get the required money forthwith. As the accused was quarreling
with the deceased wife every day for payment of money she was frustrated and
preferred to die and on the same day put an end to her life.
Judgment;
The trial court (the court of additional sessions judge) found the accused
guilty under section 306 I P C .and sentenced him to under go rigorous
imprisonment for four years however he was acquitted by the high court.
The matter remained in the abeyance for 11 years. Finally the case came up before
the supreme court which overruled the acquittal by the high court. SC upheld
the decision of TC.

SEC 307 ATTEMPT TO MURDER.

307 Attempt to murder:- Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder shall be punished

22
 23

1. with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to 10 years and
2. Shall also be liable to fine.
3. If hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment
as is here in before mentioned.

Illustrations:-
a) A shoots at z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death
not ensued, he would by guilty of attempt to murder.

b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child or tender years, exposes
it in desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section. Though
the death of the child does not ensure.

1) Gangadhar V The state of Maharashtra:-

Facts:- The accused caused injury with a pen-knife and the injury according to
the medical evidence was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death.
Judgment:- It could not be said that the accused did not intend to cause death
because injury was caused by a pen-knife, he was held guilty under sec 307.

2) Om Prakash V State:-
Facts:- The accused a chain-snatcher was a pillion rider of a motor cycle. A
police party attempted to apprehend the accused there upon the accused fired at
a sub-inspector from a country- made revolver of 32 bore but revolver misfired.
He was over powered and arrested.

Judgment:- He was held guilty under sec 307 and not under sec 308.

308 ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CULPABLE HOMICIDE:-

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both
and hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment
or wither description for a term, which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with
both.

23
 24

Example:- A on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at z, under such

circumstances that if he thereby caused death, he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. A had committed the offence in this section.

QUESTION NUMBER. 7.
Sec 309:- Attempt to commit suicide.
Attempt to commit suicide is made punishable under section 309 I P C which
runs as follows

Section 309
Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission
of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

There had been a great controversy as to the constitutional validity of section 309
I.P.C. by virtue of the decision by high court and the supreme court

Excel Wear V Union of India, Jageeswar V State of Andhra Pradesh and

Rathnam and Nagabhushan Patnik V Union of India. Held that sec 309 is
volatile of article 21.
Gian Kaur State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648):-
(

But, recently a five judge constitution bench of the supreme court overruled
the earlier decision of supreme court in p. Rathnam’s case and declared that
section 309 I.P.C. is not violative of art 21 and is constitutional in view of the
above. It is made clear that section 309 I.P.C. is constitutionally valid

Question number.8
Explain miscarriage/ offence relating to birth of children.
Ans;
Offence relating to birth of children may be explained under the following heads.
A.) causing miscarriage (Ss 312-314)
B.) injuries to unborn (Ss. 315and 316)
C.) exposures and abandonment of infants (Ss 317 and 318)

A) Causing miscarriage (section312 and 314)

24
 25

Section 312 to 314 deals with causing miscarriage. Miscarriage means pre-
mature expulsion of foetus or embryo from the uterus. Under section 312
voluntarily causing miscarriage is not caused in good faith for the purpose of
saving the life of the woman. The explanation to the section provides that a
woman who causes herself to miscarry is with in this section. If the woman is
quick with child at the time of causing miscarriage more punishment is
provided,(quick with child refers to any time after the time at which the woman
first feels the movement of the child within her.) section 313deals with causing
miscarriage without woman’s consent whether she is quick with child or not if
death happens while causing miscarriage that is made punishable by section 314
the explanation to the section states that it is not essential that the offender should
know that the act was likely to cause death.

A(1) 312 causing a miscarriage : whoever voluntarily causes a woman with

child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the
purpose of saving the life of woman, be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both
and if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine

Explanation:- A woman who causes herself to miscarry is with in the meaning

of this section.

A women with child means a pregnant lady and quick with child means the
peculiar sensations felt by a lady in the advance of the assumption of foetal form
by the embryo. if the lady is not quick with the child and the offence of
miscarriage is committed the punishment is more severe.

A pregnant woman not enduring the travils of labour if throws herself into the
well, she is not guilty under this section because she intended to end her own life
to cause miscarriage.

THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT, 1971.

The medical termination of pregnancy act, 1971 (Act No. 34 of 1971) authorises
a “registered medical practitioner” to terminate the pregnancy in certain
circumstances sections 3, 4 and 5 of the a foresaid act by which such terminates
has been legalized are as hereunder.

25
 26

Section 3 (1) notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian penal code, a

registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of an offence under that code
or under any other law for the time being in force. If any pregnancy is terminated
by him in accordance with the provisions of this act.

Section 3 (2) subject to the provisions of sub section (4) pregnancy may be
terminated by a registered medical practitioner:-

a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks , if such
medical practitioner is or
b) where the length of the pregnancy twelve weeks doesn’t exceeds twenty
weeks if not less than two registered medical parishioners are of opinion
formed in good faith that:-
i. The continuation of pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of
the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental
health or

ii. There is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would
suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be
seriously handicapped .

Explanation:- Where any pregnancy is allegedly a pregnant woman to have

been caused by rape the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to
constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman

Explanation:- Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device

or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting
the number of children the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be
presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

Section 3(3) in determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would

involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in subdivision (2)
Account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonable of
foreseeable environment.

Section 3(4):
a) no pregnancy of woman who has not attained the age of eighteen years or who
having attain the age of eighteen years in a lunatic shall be terminated.

26
 27

b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be terminated

except with the consent of the pregnant woman.

section.4:- No termination of pregnancy shall be made in accordance with this

act at any place other than:-

a) A hospital established or maintained by the Government, or

b) A place for the time being approved for the purpose of this act by government.

section5.(1) the provision of section 4 and so much of provision of subsection

(2) of section 3 as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less
than two registered medical practitioner, shall not apply to the termination of a
pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in case where he is of opinion,
formed in good faith that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately
necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian penal code the termination

of a pregnancy by person who is not a registered medical practitioner shall be an
offence punishable under that code, and that code shall to this extent stand
modified,

Explanation for the purposes of this section so much of the provisions of clause
d) of section 2 as relate to the possession by a registered medical practitioner of
experiences or training in gynecology and abstracts shall not apply.

313 causing miscarriage without woman’s consent;- whoever commits the

offence defined in the last preceding section with out the consent of the woman
where ever the woman is quick with child or not shall be punished without
imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years ,and shall also be liable to fine.
Under this section, the person who procures the abortion of a lady without
her consent punishable. Under section 312 the person procuring the abortion as
well as the lady both are punishable

314. Death caused by act done with intent to cause miscarriage:-

Who ever with intent to cause the miscarriage of a woman with child. Does
any act which cause the death of which woman shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and
shall also be liable to fine;

27
 28

If Act Done Without Woman’s Consent :-

And if the act is done without the consent of the woman shall be punished
either with imprisonment for life or with the punishment above mentioned.

Explanation:- If is not essential to this offence that the offender should know that
the act is likely to cause death.

2) B Causing injuries to unborn (sec 315 and 316)

b) Injuries to Unborn:-
sections 315 to 316 deal with the injuries to unborn children if a man intending
to prevent the birth of a living child, does any act which prevents the child from
being born alive or causes to die after its birth and if such act is not done in good
faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother he has committed an offence
under section315 sections 316 provides to die punishment for causing death of
quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide.

B. 1) 315 Act done with out intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause
it to die after birth whoever before the birth of any child does any act with the
intention of there by Preventing that child from being from being born alive, or
causing it to die after its birth . and does by such act prevent that child from being
born alive or cause it to die after its birth, if shall if such act be not caused in good
faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or
with fine, or with both.

316. Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable

homicide:-
Whoever does any act under such circumstances, That if he thereby caused death
he would be guilty of culpable homicide and does by an act which, if it caused
the death of the woman would amount to culpable homicide the such act cause
the death of a quick unborn child, Shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Illustration
A knowing that he is likely cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act
which, If it caused the death of the woman would amount to culpable homicide.
The woman is injured, but does not die but the death of an unborn quick child

28
 29

with which she is pregnant is there by caused. A is guilty of the offence defined
in this section.

3.c) Exposure and Abandonment of Infants: sec317 and 318.

Section 317 provides punishment for abounding a child under the age of twelve
years by parents or persons having care of it. If the parents or the persons who
are having the care of a child under twelve years exposed it or leave it in any
place with the intention of wholly abounding it, such acts are made punishable as
per this section. The explanation to the section provides that if the child dies in
consequence of the exposure, responsible persons are liable for culpable
homicide or murder as the case may be section 318 prevents infanticide and
penalized the disposal of the dead body to prevent detection of the infanticide it
is important to note that the dead body is buried not with the intention of
concealing death, must with the intention of concealing birth.

317. Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years by parent or

person having care of it:-
Whoever, being the father or mother of a child under the age of twelve years or
having the care of such child shall expose or leave such child in any place with
the intention of wholly abandoning such child shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years,
or with fine or with both.

Explanation:- This section is not intended to prevent the trial of the offender for
murder or culpable homicide as the case may be if the child die in consequence
of the exposure.

Exposure of Infants:- To expose means to put outside physically so that the

child may have apprehension of climate wild beasts and so on. Exposure of child
by father, mother or any person having lawful care of the child under 12 years of
age is punishable if it is done with intention of wholly abandoning such child if
the child dies after the exposure, section 317 would not prevent the offender for
being tried of the offence of culpable homicide as it is evident by explanation
attached to the section.

Examples,

29
 30

a. A woman leaving her child in the vacant house of her husband would not be
guilty under this section when her husband was soon to return there. 89

b. A mother of an illegitimate child of six months old left it is charge of a blind

woman and said that she would soon return. She went away to another village
and did not return and apparently never intended to return. It was held that she
could not be convicted.90 It is necessary for this section that the child should
left without any protection.

318. Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body:-

Whoever by secretly, burying or other wise disposing of the dead body of a child
whether such child die before or after or during its birth intentionally conceals or
endeavors to conceal the birth of such child. Shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or
both.

The section is meant to prevent the secret disposal of the child when it is born in
illegitimate relations of father and mother. The section aims to prevent the
concealment of the fact even if the child is not born alive. If the child is born alive
and death is caused by father, mother or some human agency the case will not be
covered by this section. If death of the child caused either before during or after
the birth and dead body of the child is the object of concealment from the world
at large, the case will be covered by this section. The object is to prevent
infanticide so that the illegitimate children may be prevented from being
murdered and thrown away. In case it only a fetus, sections 312 and 511 of the
penal code will apply.

Question Number 9.

What is hurt? wean simple hurt amounts to gracious hurt?

ANS;
Hurt means causing bodily injury or infirmity by one person (human being) to
another person human being. Grievous hurt is an aggravated form of hurt. The
slightest injury which is more aggravated than assault.

Sections 319 to 338 of the Indian penal code lay down the provisions relating to
hurt and grievous hurt. Hurt is also known as simple hurt.

30
 31

Simple hurt (section 319):- It means causing of (i) bodily pain; (ii)disease (iii)
infirmity to one human being by another human being ‘Infirmity’ means
‘Inability of organ to perform its normal functions’.

The infirmity may be temporary or permanent direct physical contact between

the accused and the victim is not necessary to constitute hurt if the hurt is caused
voluntarily it is an offence.

According to sections 319 whoever causes bodily pain disease or infirmity to any
person is said to cause hurt.

The accused to be guilty of hurt the prosecution must prove that the accused by
his act voluntarily caused bodily pain disease or infirmity to the complaint
(victim).

Punishment for Hurt (Ss. 323 and 324):

Section 323 of the Indian penal code provides punishment for voluntarily
causing hurt it may be one year imprisonment or with fine of Rs. 1,000/- or both
section 324 prescribes punishment for causing hurt by dangerous weapons. It
may be three years imprisonment or with fine or both.

Grievous Hurt (sec. 320):

The more serious or aggravated form of hurt is called ‘Grievous hurt’.
According to sections 320 any of the following eight instances come under the
head ‘Grievous hurt’.
1) Emasculation (depriving a person of his masculine vigour);
2) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3) Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4) Privation of any member or joint.
5) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
6) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
7) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth and
8) Any hurt which endangers life or makes the victim suffer from severe pain
or unable to follow (take up) his ordinary pursuits for a period of 20 days
or more.

1. Emasculation:-
It means unsexing the man by depriving him of his virility. Thus, this offence
applies only as against men and the clause was inserted to counter act the
practice alleged to be common amongst illiterate uncultured women in India to

31
 32

squeeze men’s testicles on the slightest provocation. Injuries to membera private

is peculiarly offensive to the feelings of the injured parties and very often prove
most dangerous. The injury to scrotum often leads not only to emasculation but
even to death.

2. Injury to eye sight:

Such injury must have the effect of permanently depriving the injured of the use
of one or both of his eyes.

3) Causing deafness:-
Such injury maybe caused by a stunning blow given on the head or the ear having
connection with the tympanum or auditory nerves

4) Loss of limb:-
This and the next

(5) Impairing of limb strictly refers to the old English offence of may them which
means violently depriving another of the use of such of his members as may
render him the less able in fighting, either to defend himself or to annoy his
adversary and therefore the cutting off or disabling or weakening a man’s hand
of fingers or striking out his eye or fore tooth or depriving him of those parts, the
loss of which in all animals abate their courage are held to be mayhems”.
Hawkins.

6) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

The word ‘disfigure’ must be distinguished from disable. To disfigure is to do a
man some external injury which detracts from his personal appearance, but does
not weaken him but to disable is to do something creating a permanent disability
and not a mere temporary injury.

9. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Fracture means breaking. Dislocation means displacement as applied to a bone
moved out of its socket.

In Naib Singh v/s state of Punjab, 1986 Cr.L.J 2061 sc:-

Where the victim was struck on middle of head by sandasa and bleeding injury
was caused through the turban the accused was held guilty for causing grievous
hurt under section 320 clause seventh of 324 and 326

32
 33

10. Dangerous Hurt:

This clause refers to three classes of injuries namely:

a. Those which endanger life

b. Those which cause severe bodily pain for 20 days, and
c. Those which disable the victim to follow his ordinary pursuit for 20
days

Punishment for Grievous Hurt (sections 325 to 328):

Section 323 to 339 provide for the punishment for hurt and Grievous hurt
depending upon the circumstances of the case.

Section 325 provides punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The term
of imprisonment may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Sec
326 prescribes punishment for grievous hurt by dangerous weapons. It may be
imprisonment for life or up to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 327 prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to export property
or constrain to an illegal act which may extend to 10 years imprisonment for
causing hurt by means of poison etc, with intent to commit an offence. It extends
to 10 years imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.

1) In Ram Pal Singh vs. state, 1993 Cr.L.J 2715 Allahabad H.C.
Facts;
In this case the accused began to construct a manager or shed in open land before
the house of the deceased’s mother. The mother protested and she had her 6 years
old daughter on her lap. The accused abused her and snatched her 6 years old girl
from her lap and threw her on ground. The child died some six days later.
Judgment;
. The accused was charged of the offence of culpable homicide before the
sessions court and sentenced to life imprisonment under sec. 302 IPC.
. But on appeal the Allahabad High Court sentenced him 3 years imprisonment
for causing grievous hurt under sec 325 IPC. The high court held that the accused
had no intention to cause the death of the child and the object of the accused in
removing the child from the lap of her mother was only to cause grievous hurt to the
mother.

2) Umesh V State of Kerala:-

33
 34

Facts:- There was a quarrel b/w the son and of the deceased and the children of
the accursed. The accursed was told by this fact by his wife, there upon, he gave
one blow by his hand to the deceased which fractured his vertebrae.

Judgement:-
There was no evidence of the use of any weapon by the accused and it was it
further proved that the accused and the deceased were facing each other. It was
held that the accused was guilty under sec 323 IPC. Since there was no intention
to cause death or grievous hurt.

c) Sadar Khan V State of Aussam:-

Facts:- The accused in a heat of moment gave a first-below on the abdomen of
the deceased an old man who fell on the ground and died. The medical report
showed the reason of his death sub-dural haemorrhage due to impact of fall on
the ground such haemorrhage, sometimes, occurs even without any external
injury.

In the circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the accused knew that a
first below was likely to cause an injury resulting in death.

Judgement:- The accused was guilty under sec 323.

Question number 10;

Explain wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement
Ans;
Section 339 to 348 of Indian Penal Code 1860 deal with offences against
human freedom.

Restraint means “Cutting short of a person’s liberty. The slightest obstruction

may amount to restraint, while confinement denotes total restraint. The
expression ‘wrongful restraint’ means “infliction of a bodily restraint upon the
freedom of a person”. If the restraint is total, it is called ‘wrong confinement’ and
is an offence under sec 340 I.P.C.

339. Wrongful restraint:- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any persons so as to

prevent that person from proceedings in any direction in which that person has a
right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

34
 35

Exception:- The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person
in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence
within the meaning of this section.

Illustration:-
A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass. A not believing in good faith
that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A
wrongfully restrain z.

Ingredients of sec 339 (wrongful restraint):-

1) a persons should be voluntarily obstructed.
2) by this obstruction he should be prevented from proceedings in any direction.
3) the person obstructed has a right to proceed in that direction.

In a wrongful restraint, the victim is not stopped from moving. He is stopped

from
moving in the direction in which he wants. He may be asked to move in a
direction different from that which he intends. It is not necessary that the
obstructer should be physically present at the time of the obstruction. It is also
not necessary that victim should be physically assaulted. When a man, his wife
and daughter had occupier a house which was locked in their absence so that they
could be prevented from entering their house, the accused was held guilty of
wrongful restraint.

.Preventing to proceed some persons in a certain direction with their carts,

.removing a ladder to detain a person on the roof of a house,
.preventing a tenant by landlord from entering his room rented by the landlord,
.putting a lock by landlord on the premises of a tenant when he had already
locked it

are some of the illustrations of the wrongful restraint.

❖ It is not limited only to capable of walking physically. It also applicable to

those persons restraint who move by others, a child is a sick or a paralytic
can become the subject of wrongful restraint or confinement.

❖ The obstruction must be direct and actual by the offender. If it only

indirect, it would not attract the section.

Case law:-

35
 36

1) Padati Chenchu Reddi (Book)

When the bailiff of a court went to judgment debtor’s house in order to execute
the warrant, he seeing a palki thinking that the judgment-debtor was effecting his
escape, stopped the palki but there was a pardanashin lady sitting in it. The
provision of this section were held not to apply as he had acted bona fide.

According to Bombay and Calcutta high court when the cart is stopped by the
persons sitting on the cart are allowed to move, it would not be a case of wrongful
restraint however, the madras and patna high court, have taken the contrary views.

1) Bhim singh V state of J and K:-

Facts:- Bhim Singh, an M.L.A. of J & K assembly was wrongfully detained by
its police, while he was going to attend the assembly session. His wife moved the
write of Habeas corpus

Judgement:-
Supreme court awarded him, exemplary damages of Rs 50,000/-

2) Bird V Jones:-
Facts;
The defendants wrongfully enclosed a public foot way by arranging seats to
witness a boat race. The plaintiff asked hem to give way. But the defendant s
asked the plaintiff to falls through the other side of the bridge. The plaintiff
refused to do so and ruled them for wrongful confinement.

Judgment:- The defendants were held not liable since, there was an alternative
way (i.e. means of escape)

3) Sobha Rani V The king

Facts;
The accused a landlord obstructer/ prevented the tenant from using the bath room.
Judgment:- the accursed was held guilty of wrongful retrain under sec 339.

Sec 340:- wrongful confinement:-

340. Wrongful confinement:- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such

a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain
circumscribing limits, is said “Wrongfully to confine” that person.

36
 37

Illustration:-
(a) A cause z to go within a walled space, and locks z in, z is thus prevented from
proceedings in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully
confines Z.

(b) A places men with fire-arms at the outlets of a building, and tells z that they
will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

Ingredients:-
There are two essentials to this section:-
1) A person is wrongfully restraint.
2) By it, he is prevented from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits.

In a confinement, a person is restrained from going beyond certain limits. If the

restraint is illegal, it is a wrongful confinement. Under English law, this offence
is known as false-imprisonment.

The confinement must be against the will of the person confined. He must be
willing to move outside the prescribed limits of confinement. “there can be no
wrongful confinement when a desire to proceed has never existed, nor can a
confinement be wrongful if the person confined chooses to remain where he is”
for a wrongful confinement, the physical obstruction is not necessary. Some
persons were asked to stay in a certain limit by a police-officer for several days
because he suspected them as offenders. They were not fettered. The meal was
also given to them by the persons brought from the village. The police-officer was
held guilty of wrongful confinement.

Case law
1) Habib Khan V state
In a case the petitioners were chowkidars and Daffadars. On being told that the
complainant had stolen a gagra. They tied the complainant by a turban and
compelled him to proceed in the direction of the police-station. In an orchard, they
made a proposal for the release on the payment of Rs. 50/- and on the payment of
Rs 25/- he was released. It was held that the detention of the complainant in the
orchard was a wrongful confinement.

2) Ram Das Sadho v Anand chundes roy

If the police rearrests a person for the offence for which he has already been
discharged by the magistrate. It is a wrongful confinement. The accused cannot
say later on that he did not know that he was doing a wrong because it was a

37
 38

mistake of law. If a police officer arrests a person under a reasonable belief that
he is the man mentioned in the warrant. Although he is not that man. His act is
not an offence as it is protected under section 76 of I.P.C.
. if a person keeps his brother in chains, who is under intermittent insanity, so that
he may be medically treated his is guilty of wrongful confinement.

Difference b/w wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint:-

1) a). In wrongful confinement a person is detained with in certain limits.

b). In a wrongful restraint, a person is retrained from moving in a particular
direction.

2) a. The person detained is not due to move anywhere beyond the circumscribed
limit.

b. The person is restrained to move only in one direction otherwise he is free

to move in all other directions.

3) a. Here we may say that the person confined is a detenu.

b. Here we may say that only particular way is obstructed. The person is not
detained.

4) a. The restraint is total.

b. restraint is partial.

5) a. Offences under sec 340.

b. Offences under sec 339.

6) a. wrongful confinement is species of the wrongful restraint.

b. wrongful restraint is genus.

Punishment:-
1) sec 341 punishment for wrongful restraint.
341 = one month imprisonment or fine upto 500 or both.

2) Sec 342 punishment for wrongful confinement.

1 years imprisonment or fine 1000 or both.

3) sec 343 wrongful confinement for

3 or more days:- 2 years imprisonment or fine or both.

38
 39

4) Sec 344 wrongful confinement for ten or more days:-

3 years imprisonment and also fine.

Question number 11).

Explain “Force” criminal force and assault?
Ans;
The term ‘Force’ is defined in sec 349 and the term ‘criminal force’ is defined in
sec 350 I.P.C. and both contemplate the use of force to a person and not to a thing.
Where as the term ‘Assault’ means “laying of hand or an attempt to do a corporal
hunt to another, by using some force without any lawful justification”

349. Force:- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion.

Change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any
substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that
substance into contact with any part of that other’s body, or with anything which
the other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact
affects that other’s sense of feelings;

Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of
motion, causes of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three was herein
after described:

First- By his own bodily power:

Secondly- By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change
or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the
part of any other person.
Thirdly- By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to
move.

Force is causing:-
Motion,
Change of motion or

39
 40

Cessation of motion to another person; and

Force is causing to any substance-
i) Motion, change of motion or cessation of motion;
ii) which brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s body or
with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated
that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling.

The section further provides that the force as described by the section may be used
by the person exercising:-
i) by his physical power.
ii) by disposing a substance in such a manner that the motion or change or
cessation of motion takes place and nothing further is done on his part or on the
part of any other person.
iii) by inducing an animal to move or to cease to move or to change its motion.

To exercise one’s energy upon the other human being is a force. The force
may be exercised directly or indirectly.
If a man by raising his stick causes another man to move away although he
does not strike it upon him, he used force.
If the cattle are driven away by cries and shouts, it is the exercise of force.
It is necessary for the force that it should be used against a human being and
not against an inanimate object.

350. Criminal force:- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person. without
that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by
the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such
force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is
used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

Illustrations
a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus
intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream, here A intentionally causes
motion to Z and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the
motion is produced without any other action an any person’s part. A has therefore,
intentionally, used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent, in order
to the committing any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely that this use
of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z. A has used criminal force to Z.

b) Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z’s horses, and thereby causes them to quick
their pace. Here a has caused change of motion to Z by inducting the animals to

40
 41

change their motion. A has, therefore, used force to Z; and if A has done this
without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby
injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has used criminal force to Z.

c) Z is riding in a palanquin. A intending to rob Z, seizes the pole and stops the
palanquin. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by
his own bodily power. A, has, therefore, used force to Z; and as A has acted thus
intentionally, without Z’s consent in order to the commission of an offence. A has
used criminal force to Z.

d) A intentionally pushes against Z in the street. Here A has by his own bodily
power moved his own person so as to bring it into contact with Z. he has,
therefore, intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent,
intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy
z, he has used criminal force to Z.

Ingredients of criminal force:-

There are following ingredients of this section

1) The force is used intentionally to any person.
2) The force is used without the consent of that person.
3) The force should be used.
i) In order to the committing of an offence, or
ii) With the intention to cause or knowingly it to be likely that the
injury, fear or annoyance will be caused to the person to whom the
force is used.

If the accused took possession of the house in the absence of the landlord, he
cannot be said to have used criminal force or show of criminal force or
intimidation. If the accused raises his lathi to strike the other so that he flees to
save himself. The accused is guilty of using criminal force.

Assault (sec 351)

Assault is something less than the use of criminal force, every criminal force
includes assault (but every assault does not include the criminal force). The term
assault literally means “laying of hands or an attempt to do a corporal hurt to
another by using some force without any lawful justification.

351. Assault:-

41
 42

Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be

likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend
that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that
person, is said to commit an assault.

Explanation
Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person use may
give to his gestures or preparation such a meanings as may make those gestures
or preparations amount to an assault.

Illustrations
a) A shakes his first at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby
cause Z to believe that A is about to strike Z, A has committed an assault.
b) A begins to unloose the muzzle of a ferocious dog, intending or knowing it to
be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that he is about to cause the dog
to attack Z. A has committed an assault upon Z.
c) A takes up a stick, saying to X “I will give you a beating”. Here, though the
words used by A could in no case amount to an assault, and though the mere
gesture unaccompanied by any other circumstances, might not amount to an
assault, the gesture explained by the words may amount to an assault.

Ingredients.
There are following ingredients of an assault:-
1) Gesture should be given or preparation should be made by a person in the
presence of another.

2) The persons giving the gesture or doing the preparation should intend or know
the by it he is likely to cause the person present to apprehend that the criminal
force will be used against him.

Generally, preparation to commit an act is not an offence but preparation is an

assault under this section and the assault is an offence.

Assault and Hurt:-

There is a difference between the two offences. The illustrations appended to
sections 350 and 352 clearly manifest the intention of the legislature that it had
made a difference between ‘assault’ and ‘hurt’.

Binbal Khalifa V Emperor:-

42
 43

Facts:- The accursed was registered at a police-station as a man of bad character.

A sub-inspector on a domiciliary visit intended to take the thumb impression of
its accused but the accused, holding a lathi in his hand, come out of his house and
said that he would break his head of the man asking for his thumb-impression.

Judgement :-
The trial court convicted him under sec 353 but the high court acquitted him
holding the threat conditional.

The offence of assault is possible only against a person and not against the public.

Punishment:-

352:- Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave

provocation.
3 months imprisonment or 5 hundred rupees or both.

Distinction b/w assault and criminal force.

Criminal force Assault

1) Section 349 defines criminal force. 1) Sec 351 defines assault.
2) Physical contract exists. 2) The exists on physical
contract.
3) It is an application of criminal force. 3) It is an attempt of criminal
force.
4) Criminal force includes assault. 4) Every assault may not include
Criminal force.
5) The offence of criminal force is more 5) It is less serious when
compared
Serious when compared to the offence to the of the offence of
criminal
of assault. Force.

43
 44

Question number 12)

310. Thug:-
Whoever, at any time after the passing of this act, shall have been habitually
associated with any other or others for the purposes of committing robbery or child-
stealing by means of or a accompanies with murder, is a thug.

Comments
The section defines thug. The essentials of this offence are:-
1) The offender should be habitually associated with some person or persons for
committing robbery or child-stealing, and
2) The child stealing or robbery is accompanied with murder or murder is adopted
as the means to commit child-stealing or robbery.

Thugs are robbers and dacoits who use to commit murders for kidnapping and
robbery. Although thugs do not exists now in India yet the punishment remains in
the penal code. Thugs were organized gangs of roaming murderer who used to kill
their victims first. They used to do it in fairs. Serais, bazaars and public ways. They
used to remain disguised in the form of domestic servants, crafts-men, cart-men,
sages or merchants etc, with the objects to rob and murder only.

311. Punishment:-

Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and shall be liable
to fine.

44