Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(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 act is likely to cause death."

If the offence is such which is covered by any one of the clauses enumerated above, but does not fall within the ambit of clauses Firstly to Fourthly of Section 300 IPC, it will not be murder and the offender would not be liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. In such a case if the offence is such which is covered by clauses (i) or (ii) mentioned above, the offender would be liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC as it uses the expression "if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death" where intention is the dominant factor. However, if the offence is such which is covered by clause (iii) mentioned above, the offender would be liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC because of the use of the expression "if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death" where knowledge is the dominant factor.

(14) Section 299 of Indian Penal Code runs as under;-

"299. Culpable homicide.-- Wheoever 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."

Section 300 of Indian Penal Code runs as under :-

Appellant cannot extricate himself from the consequence of his act attracting the ingredients of murder by pointing out Section 304 Part I which also contains the expression, "the act with the intention to cause death'. The implications are vastly different. Section 304 of the IPC would apply only in a case where culpable homicide is not murder. If the act amounting to culpable homicide satisfies any of the four criteria to bring it under the offence of murder, being mutually exclusive, there can be no scope for applying Section 304 of the IPC. On the other hand, if the act is culpable homicide as falling in any of the five exceptional circumstances mentioned in Section 300 and then it would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In cases where the accused is able to establish he is entitled to the benefit of any of the exceptions under Section 300 then his case may be considered under Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 of the IPC depending on whether the act which caused the culpable homicide was done with the intention of causing death or with knowledge that it is likely to cause death. That apart cases of culpable homicide which do not attract any of the four situations under Section 300 would still be culpable homicide to be dealt with under Section 304 of the IPC. However, if the case falls under any of the four limbs of Section 300, there would be no occasion to allow Section 304 to have play. If the act which caused the death and which is culpable homicide is done with the intention of causing death, then it would be murder. This is however subject to the act not being committed in circumstances attracting any of the 5 exceptions.Appellant's contention that it would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reliance placed on the words 'done with the intention of causing death' in Section 304 Part-I is wholly merit-less.'' (29) Section 34 of Indian Penal Code runs as under :-

(48) In the light of earlier discussions and relevant law mentioned herein-above, it has to be seen as to whether all three accused persons shared common intention for causing death of the deceased or not. In the cases of Shyamlal Ghosh & Others vs. State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC479 and Pandurang Tukia & Bhillia vs. State of Hyderabad, 1955 SCR (1)1083 it was held that there was no prior meeting of minds and the incident took place all of a sudden, therefore, it cannot be held that there was any share common intention of the accused. Hence, considerins facts and circumstances of case, learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the ccused persons can be convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of appellants is hereby set aside. (49) So far as the next question as to whether all three accused shared common intention of causing death of deceased or not; is concerned, in the present circumstances, the individual act of accused is required to be seen while convicting with the aid of Section 34 of IPC if the act committed by a particular accused and other accused shared common intention, hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court erred in holding that the act was done in furtherance of common intention. (50) In the present case, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Laxmi Narayan, by holding ''lathi/luhangi'', has caused death of deceased. There is a dispute regarding weapon used by accused Laxmi Narayan, as some of witnesses in their evidence deposed that accused Laxmi Narayan had used a lathi/luhangi while the prime witness, Smt. Gorabai (PW1) and eye-witness Ram Singh (PW2) stated that deceased Laxmi Narayan had used ''luhangi'' with which he caused injury the head of deceased. Only difference in the evidence is regarding use of weapon.