Murder
Anantalf
(Querist) 13 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
Murder is homicide:) Dear Experts enlighten me on this
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder or culpable homicide – Determination – Accused himself sustained severe injuries and remained in hospital for 20 days – Right of self-defence was available to accused – However in view of fact that he had exceeded such right – He convicted under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C.@P =
Thomas George alias Thomas vs. State of Kerala, 2000 Cri.L.J. 3475 (S.C.): 1999 SCC (Cri) 1308 : AIR 2000 SCW 2412
Murder or Culpable homicide – Determination – Accused inflicting danda blow on head of victim resulting into his death – Not a case of previous enmity – Accused could not be said to have intention of killing deceased – However he could be said to have knowledge that blow was likely to cause death of deceased – Case would fall under Section 304 Part II and not under Section 302.@P =
Camilo Vaz vs. State of Goa, 2000 Cri.L.J. 1816 (S.C.): 2000(2) Crimes 29 : 2000(2) All Cri LR 353 : 2000(2) Cur Cri R 55 : 2000(2) Rec Cri R 607 : AIR 2000 (S.C)1374
Murder or culpable homicide – Determination – Premeditation can develop on spot – It depends upon facts and circumstances of case – Deceased given 5-6 dagger blows – Case would fall under Section 300 I.P.C. and not under Section 304 I.P.C.@P =
Bahadur Naik vs. State of Bihar, 2000 Cri.L.J. 2466 (S.C.): 2000(3) Crimes 69 : 2000(3) Cur Cri R 20 : 2000(28) All Cri R 1515 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1186 : 2000(2) All Cri LR 718 : 2000(41) All Cri C 120 : AIR 2000 (S.C)1582
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Homicide—Intention to kill is not necessary in every case.
An intention to kill is not required in every case. A knowledge that the natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under Section 302, I.P.C.
Santosh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 CrLJ 602 : 1975 AIR (SC) 654 : 1975(3) SCR 463 : 1975 CAR 92 : 1975 Mad LW (Cr) 78
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Identification of accused—Name of accused not mentioned in FIR—Recovery made at the instance of accused from an open place cannot lend much credence—Conviction on the basis of retracted confession not permissible.
Kora Ghasi v. State of Orissa, 1983 CrLJ 692(2) : 1983 AIR (SC) 360 : 1983 CrLR (SC) 188 : 1983 SCC (Cr) 387 : 1983 CAR 135
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder – Identity of corpus delicti – Proof – Dead body of deceased identified by his sister, nephew and other witnesses – Deceased was aged about 29 years – Opinion by novice doctor that deceased was aged about 40 years – Not material as same was given without conducting any medical test – Opinion by such novice doctor that penis of deceased’s dead body had undergone religious circumcision – Also immaterial when senior doctor who conducted post-mortem had not found any evidence of such circumcision on dead body – It can be said that identity of corpus delicti was established.@P =
State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and others etc. etc., 2000 Cri.L.J. 4047 (S.C.): 2000 (4) Crimes 1 : 2000 Cri LR (S.C)681 : 2000 (29) All Cri R 2200 : 2000 (3) Cur Cri R 153 : 2000 (41) All Cri C 598 : AIR 2000 SC 2988
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Injury caused on the head of the deceased—Medical opinion that death was inevitable—Conviction for murder affirmed.
The blow was so severe that there was profuse bleeding inside the brain. One of the skull fractures extended from the right temporal region to the left temporal region and proceeded internally to the base of the skull. Dr. S.N. Banerji, who did the autopsy on the dead body of Bucha has deposed: "With these injuries death was inevitable." This medical opinion clearly brings the case of appellant within the purview of Section 300, third clause. So the High Court is right in convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C.
Kishan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 CrLJ 324 : 1974 AIR (SC) 244 : 1974 (3) SCC 623 : 1974 Cr LR (SC) 5
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Intention—Determination of—The intention can be ascertained from the number and nature of injuries—34 Injuries caused and opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death—Conviction for murder affirmed.
As many as 34 injuries has been caused to Sitaram. Twenty-nine of the injuries were in the nature of contusions, while one was a lacerated wound and four consisted of abrasions. The injuries had resulted in the fracture of ribs, humerous, ulna and metacanpal bones. Injuries had also been caused to the kidneys and lungs. Some of the injuries had resulted in compound fractures. The number and the nature of injuries caused to Sitaram were such as showed that the intention of the assailants was to cause his death. According to Dr. Deshpande, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the circumstances, the High Court, in our opinion, rightly took the view that the case against the assailants fell under Section 302 read with Section 34.
Laxman and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1974 CrLJ 1271 : 1974 AIR (SC) 1803 : 1974 (3) SCC 490
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Intention and knowledge—Determination of—Existence of positive mental attitude is a requirement of special mens rea.
"Intent" and "knowledge" in the ingredients of Section 299 postulate the existence of positive mental attitude and this mental condition is the special mens rea necessary for the offence. The guilty intention in the first two conditions contemplates the intended death of the person harmed or the intentional causing of an injury likely to cause his death. The knowledge in the third condition contemplates knowledge of the likelyhood of the death of the persons.
If the act of the accused falls under Clause (b) of Section 299, that is to say, if the intended bodily injury is likely to cause death as distinguished from one which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Clause Thirdly of Section 300 would not apply.
Jayaraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1976 CrLJ 1186 : 1976 AIR (SC) 519 : 1976 CrLR (SC) 236 : 1976 CAR 176 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 293
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Intention of accused—Pouring of kerosene oil and lighting the match—Injuries caused on accused person's hands in attempting to put out the fire—The intention of accused to kill cannot be doubted on account of such conduct.
At the time of his arrest, the appellant had burn injuries on both of his palms. Considering the nature of those injuries it is impossible to accept his explanation that he received the burns due to the spilling of boiling water. The evidence shows that the appellant made some attempt to put out the fire and it is in that process that he received the burn injuries.
Relying on the circumstance that the appellant tried to put out the fire, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased and cannot therefore be convicted under Section 302. It is impossible to accept this submission because if the appellant set fire to the deceased after accused No. 6 had poured kerosene on his body, there cannot be any doubt that the intention of the appellant was to kill the deceased.
Bandarupalli Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1975 CrLJ 21 : 1974 AIR (SC) 2363 : 1974 CAR 340 : 1975(3) SCC 492
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Intention to cause death—Accused setting the cottage at fire after locking the door so that the deceased could not get out—Accused also took active steps to prevent others from helping deceased—Intention of accused held to cause death—Conviction for murder, affirmed.
Rawalpenta Venkalu and another v. The State of Hyderabad, 1956 AIR SC 171 : 1956 CrLJ 338
Murder—Intention to cause death—Sudden quarrel—Accused striking the deceased with blunt side of weapon which was an agricultural equipment—Injury caused with force resulting in cerebral compression—No inference can be drawn that accused had intended to cause such injury as may be sufficient to cause death.
Under Clause Thirdly of Section 330 of the Code, culpable homicide is murder if both the following conditions are satisfied: (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death, viz. that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.
There is no justification for the assertion that the giving of a solitary blow on a vital part of the body resulting in the death must always necessarily reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304, Part II of the Code. If a man deliberately strikes another on the head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod or even a lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull, he must, in the absence of any circumstances negativing the presumption, be deemed to have intended to cause the death of the victim or such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death. The whole think depends upon the intention to cause death, and the case may be covered by either Clause Firstly or Clause Thirdly. The nature of intention must be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon the death.
Looking at the totality of the evidence, it would not be possible to come to the conclusion that when the appellant struck the deceased with the blunt side of the gandhala, he intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A gandhala is a common agricultural implement consisting of a flat, rectangular iron strip, three sides of which are blunt, embedded in a wooden handle. The length of the iron strip is in continuation of the wooden handle and the end portion is sharp, which is used to dig holes in the earth to set up fencing on embankements in the field. If a man is hit with th blunt side on the head with sufficient force, it is bound to cause, as here, death. There can be no doubt that it was used with certain amount of force because there was cerebral compression. But that by itself is not sufficient to raise an inference that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient to cause death. He could only be attributed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause the death. The matter, therefore, does not fall within Clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the Code.
Jagrup Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1981 CrLJ 1136 : 1981 AIR (SC) 1552 : 1981 SCC (Cr) 768 : 1981 CAR 304
Murder—Intention to cause injury—Effect of unintentional injury—Ordinarily intention to cause injury is proved otherwise by the circumstances.
The question in such a case which falls for determination is whether the causing of the fatal injury was accidental or unintentional or whether some some other kind of injury was intended to be inflicted by the assailant. Ordinarily and generally once the existence of the injury is proved, the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence of the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion.
The appellant Hardev Singh did not intend to cause the fatal injury to Tej Kaur but when he struck her with a kirpan he must have known that the deceased then being in bent position the blow could lend on any vital part of her body and that it was likely to result in her death.
Hardev Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, 1975 CrLJ 243 : 1975 AIR (SC) 179 : 1975 CAR 3 : 1975 (3) SCC 731 : 1975 Mad LJ (Cr) 369
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Intention to kill—Injury caused on vital parts of body is sufficient to attribute intention to kill on the accused—Injury caused on the head resulted in death—Conviction for murder, affirmed.
Chahat Khan v. The State of Haryana, 1973 CrLJ 36 : 1972 AIR (SC) 2574 : 1972 (3) SCC 408 : 1972 CAR 284
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Nature of injuries—Attack by lathis—Lathi blows given by two accused persons on the head of the deceased with great force causing injury sufficient to cause his death—The persons causing injury are liable to conviction for murder.
It is clear that each of the said two appellants simultaneously gave a blow with great force on the head of Ram Chandra resulting in the fracture of his parietal and temporal bones. The facts unmistakably show that when each of them gave a blow on the head of Ram Chandra, at the time of giving the blow they developed and shared a common intention of causing such injury to him which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause his death.
Ram Prasad and others v. The State of U.P., 1976 CrLJ 201 : 1976 AIR (SC) 199 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 24 : 1976 CrLR (SC) 71
Murder—Nature of injuries—Multiple injuries on various parts of body—Though no injury caused to vital parts of body but it can be presumed that the accused persons had the knowledge that the cumulative effect of injuries would result in death of deceased—Conviction for homicide, affirmed.
Multiple injuries were received by the deceased persons which were caused by blunt weapons like lathis and are of minor character. Furthermore, the injuries are not on any vital parts of the body and even those which are on the scalp portion appear to be very superficial. There is nothing to show that the accused intended to cause the deliberate murder of the two deceased persons. There is no evidence to show that any of the accused ordered the killing of the deceased persons or incited or in any way expressed a desire to kill the deceased persons at the spot. In these circumstances we are satisfied that there is no legal evidence in this case that the accused intended to cause the murder of the deceased. The fact, however, remains that the accused have caused multiple injuries on both the deceased persons on various parts of their bodies and, therefore, they undoubtedly had the knowledge that the cumulative effect of the injuries would result in the death of the deceased. As all the accused appear to have acted together and under a pre-conceived plan which developed at the spot and which is clear from the fact that they suddenly pounced on the deceased and went away together they must be deemed to have possessed a common intention to assault the deceased with the knowledge that the injuries caused by them were likely to cause the death of the deceased. In these circumstances, the accused have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not one under Section 302, I.P.C. We would, therefore, allow this appeal only to this extent that the conviction of the appellants is altered from that under Section 302 to that under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and their sentences reduced from life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine. The conviction and concurrent sentence passed by the High Court under Sections 325/34, I.P.C. is maintained.
Molu and others v. State of Haryana, 1976 CrLJ 1895 : 1976 AIR (SC) 2499 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 636 : 1976 CrLR (SC) 387
Murder—Nature of injury—Injury found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death—Accused held to have intention to cause such injury—Conviction for murder, affirmed.
Ram Murti and another v. State of Haryana, 1976 CrLJ 1888 : 1976 AIR (SC) 2455 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 602 : 1976 CrLR (SC) 462
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder – Non-ascertation of blood group of deceased – Effect – Blood group of deceased could not be ascertained from sample of earth which was sent for analysis – This fact cannot be said to be sufficient to conclude that deceased could not have been killed at place where his dead body was found.
State of Gujarat vs. Chavda Manaji Chelaji and others, 2000 Cri.L.J. 1091 (Guj.) : 2000 Cri LR (S.C)76 : 1999(2) Guj LH 827 : 2000(1) Guj LR 13
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder – Omission to put question to doctor – Effect – Fact that public prosecutor not put question to doctor as to whether injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Not sufficient for Court to draw a wrong conclusion – Court itself could have deducted by looking at injuries as to whether they were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and others etc. etc., 2000 Cri.L.J. 4047 (S.C.): 2000 (4) Crimes 1 : 2000 Cri LR (S.C)681 : 2000 (29) All Cri R 2200 : 2000 (3) Cur Cri R 153 : 2000 (41) All Cri C 598 : AIR 2000 SC 2988
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder and attempt to murder – Proof – Material discrepancies and omissions found in testimony of eye-witnesses – Identification of accused by one of eye-witness not reliable – Testimony of other child witness as to identification of accused also not reliable in absence of corroborations – Non-examination of injured witness, remained unexplained – Presence of police officers at place of occurrence not proved beyond doubt – No corroboration between testimony of eye-witnesses and medical evidence – Ballistic report showing that bullets recovered from body of deceased were not fired from pistols recovered from accused – Prosecution not establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt – Accused acquitted.
State of U.P. vs. Ashok Dixit and another, 2000 Cri.L.J. 1436 (S.C.): 2000(1) Crimes 257 : 2000 Cri LR (S.C)253 : 2000(27) All Cri R 675 : 2000(1) Rec Cri R 841
Murder and robbery – Proof – Story as to last seen together proved – Recovery of dead body from railway track – Injuries found on person of deceased showing that it was a case of homicidal death – Nothing on record to suggest or even surmise a plausible reason of her own for victim to commit suicide – Evidence also showing that accused had sold ornaments of deceased – Not a case of false implication – Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. providing missing link to connect accused with death and cause for death of deceased – Accused rightly convicted.@P =
Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo vs. State of Kerala, 2000 Cri.L.J. 2467 (S.C.): 2000(41) All Cri C 105 : AIR 2000 SC : 1608 : 2000(2) Crimes 230 : 2000(2) All Cri LR 677 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 926 : 2000(2) Rec Cri R 738
Murder and unlawful assembly – Proof – Accused persons carrying lathis and guns formed unlawful assembly and made a declaration that in event of any resistance to take away the paddy which was the original object, they were willing to take life out of deceased and take away the paddy – On resistance accused persons given lathi blows and fired at deceased – Testimony of injured eye-witnesses held reliable – Accused persons rightly convicted with aid of Section 149 of I.P.C. – However in view of fact that one of the accused was aged only 13 years at time of commission of offence and such plea was not taken before trial Court or High Court – His conviction sustained but sentence set-aside.
Umesh Singh and another, etc. vs. State of Bihar, 2000 Cri.L.J. 3167 (S.C.): 2000 (3) Crimes 89 : 2000 (3) All Cri LR 245 : 2000 (3) Rec Cri R 14 : 2000 (28) All Cri R 1628 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1026 : 2000 (41)All Cri C 160 : AIR 2000 SC 2111
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder—Sentence—Pre-meditated murder by gun shot injury proved by evidence of ballistic expert—Defence of deposit of gun found to be untrue—Sentence of death, in the absence of extenuating circumstances affirmed.
The evidence of the Ballistic Expert establishes beyond doubt that the catridge which caused Hazuri Singh's death was fired from the appellant's gun.
The appellant's claim that he had deposited his gun with the arms dealer even on the 21st was clearly disproved by the evidence of the dealer as well as his records. The appellant seems to have gone and deposited the gun with the arms dealer after having committed the crime.
There are no extenuating circumstances and the sentence of death passed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge and confirmed by the learned Judges of the High Court is the appropriate one in the circumstances of this case.
Vijai Bahadur v. The State of U.P., 1974 CrLJ 1299 : 1974 AIR (SC) 1900 : 1973 (4) SCC 8 : 1973 CAR 65
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Murder – Time of death – Determination – It Cannot be viewed with any mathematical accuracy – Evidence of eye-witnesses as regards time of occurrence of incidental and of doctors as regards time of death – Cannot to discarded merely on theoretical consideration of process of digestion of food.@P =
State of Gujarat vs. Chavda Manaji Chelaji and others, 2000 Cri.L.J. 1091 (Guj.) : 2000 Cri LR (S.C)76 : 1999(2) Guj LH 827 : 2000(1) Guj LR 13
yogesh
(Expert) 13 April 2011
It appears the answering expert has full verse with the case law refrencer
Sri Vijayan.A
(Expert) 14 April 2011
Good work done by Mr.Gulshan
