Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 300 of ipc in Sanjeev Alias Sonu & Birender @ Boya vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 May, 2013Matching Fragments
19. The definition of 'murder' is given in Section 300 IPC. That definition, inter alia, says that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi there was an intention on the part of the appellants to kill Hardev Singh. We have already held that there is no indication of existence of such an intention. Therefore, it is to be seen if any of the other parts of definition of 'murder' can be applicable. Clause '3rdly' of the said definition says that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused, 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. In Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab : 1958Cri LJ 818 the following was held by the Supreme Court while interpreting clause '3rdly' of Section 300 IPC :
81. On the same aspect, our attention has been drawn to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported at (2006) 2 SCC (Crl.) 394 Sandhya Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra. In this case the court explained the conditions for applicability of section 300 Exception 4 of the IPC. The court laid down the circumstances which are necessary to be satisfied for invocation of the Exception 4 and held as follows :-
"8. For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
93. The Supreme Court thereafter discussed the principles laid down by Vivian Bose, J. in the well known prior pronouncement reported at 1958 SC 465, Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab in para 29 thus:-
29. The ingredients of clause "Thirdly" of Section 300, IPC were brought out by the illustrious Judge in his terse language as follows:
"12. To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300, "thirdly".
101. In the light of the judicial pronouncements noted above, we are therefore of the view that in the present case, in order to bring home the guilt for commission of an offence of murder, the prosecution was required to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the conditions of Section 300 of the IPC. The prosecution has established that the deceased Mohd. Rizwan Khan had a bodily injury (Section 300 of the IPC „firstly‟); that the injury was a stab wound caused by a sharp edged weapon („Section 300 of the IPC secondly‟). However, the prosecution could not establish that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury and that it was not accidental or unintentional, or even that some other kind of injury was intended (i.e, the requirement of Section 300 of the IPC „thirdly‟). It is only if all three elements stood proved that the injury would proceed to the last clause of Section 300 of the IPC. (Ref. 1958 CrLJ 818, Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab). The case therefore falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.