Revised Definition Of Murder
Revised Definition of Murder
Legal Framework
Under Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, murder is primarily defined under:
Section 300 IPC — defines murder,
Section 302 IPC — prescribes punishment for murder.
Section 300 IPC – Definition of Murder
Murder is the killing of a person with “intent to cause death” or “intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death”, subject to certain exceptions.
Exceptions exclude some killings from murder and reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder:
Grave and sudden provocation (Exception 1),
Right of private defense (Exception 2),
Act done without premeditation in sudden fight (Exception 3),
Consent of a person over 18 to death (Exception 4),
Act done by a public servant in lawful discharge of duty (Exception 5),
Act done in good faith for preventing crime (Exception 6),
Act done in good faith for causing death on consent of the person (Exception 7).
Key Ingredients of Murder (Section 300)
Act must cause death of a human being.
Intention to cause death or intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death.
The act must be done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death.
Absence of exceptions in the act.
Revised Understanding and Clarifications
Courts have interpreted intention and knowledge strictly.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been elaborated.
Factors like premeditation, provocation, self-defense, and degree of injury are critically assessed.
Recent judgments emphasize moral culpability, mens rea, and factual matrix.
Important Case Laws on the Revised Definition of Murder
1. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
Facts: Accused inflicted a blow with a sword that caused death.
Issue: Whether the act amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is key to murder.
Significance: Clarified the intention and knowledge requirement under Section 300 IPC.
2. M. Rama Rao v. State of T.N. (1976)
Facts: Accused caused injuries but claimed absence of intention to kill.
Issue: Whether injuries inflicted were sufficient to hold him guilty of murder.
Judgment: The Court examined the nature of injuries and intention. Held that injuries likely to cause death with knowledge suffice.
Significance: Emphasized that intention can be inferred from the nature of injuries.
3. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
Facts: Naval officer killed his wife’s lover in a sudden fight.
Issue: Whether killing was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Judgment: Court held that sudden fight without premeditation can reduce murder to culpable homicide under Exception 3.
Significance: Important for understanding exceptions to murder based on circumstances.
4. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1959)
Facts: Accused stabbed deceased, causing death.
Issue: Whether the act was murder or culpable homicide.
Judgment: Court held that if the injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, it amounts to murder.
Significance: Clarified "likely to cause death" in Section 300 IPC.
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Case regarding death penalty for murder.
Issue: Differentiating between murder and lesser offences and deciding on sentencing.
Judgment: Supreme Court redefined the rarest of rare doctrine for imposing death penalty in murder cases.
Significance: Refined approach towards punishment for murder.
6. Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi (2018)
Facts: Question of intention and mens rea in murder.
Issue: How to infer intention in absence of direct evidence.
Judgment: Court held that intention can be inferred from the manner of assault and facts.
Significance: Reiterated that direct evidence of intention is not always necessary.
7. Pappu @Sundara Pandian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019)
Facts: Accused caused injuries but claimed sudden provocation.
Issue: Whether provocation reduced offence from murder.
Judgment: Court emphasized strict scrutiny of provocation and upheld murder conviction as provocation was not immediate or grave.
Significance: Clarified scope of Exception 1 to Section 300.
Summary Table of Key Points
| Case | Key Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Virsa Singh v. Punjab (1958) | Intention to cause death or bodily injury | Definition of murder clarified |
| M. Rama Rao v. T.N. (1976) | Nature of injuries infers intention | Intention can be inferred from injury severity |
| K.M. Nanavati v. Maharashtra (1962) | Sudden fight exception reduces murder to culpable homicide | Important exception to murder definition |
| State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu (1959) | "Likely to cause death" explained | Clarified causation and knowledge requirement |
| Bachan Singh v. Punjab (1980) | Rarest of rare doctrine for death penalty | Refined sentencing in murder cases |
| Santosh Kumar Singh v. Delhi (2018) | Inferring intention from facts | No need for direct evidence of mens rea |
| Pappu v. Tamil Nadu (2019) | Strict interpretation of provocation exception | Limits scope of provocation in murder |
Conclusion
The definition of murder under Section 300 IPC has been consistently interpreted to require intention or knowledge of fatal injury.
The exceptions to murder are carefully scrutinized, especially concerning provocation and sudden fight.
The courts have refined the understanding of intention, knowledge, and culpability over time.
Sentencing principles like the “rarest of rare” doctrine guide the application of the death penalty.
Intention can be inferred from facts and severity of injuries, not just direct evidence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments