Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • IPC Arguments Advanced 1

    Uploaded by

    Suayushi Patnaik
    25 views4 pages
    The appellants argue that their actions did not amount to murder under section 302 of the IPC because it was done without criminal intent and under sudden and grave provocation. For an act to be considered murder, it must meet the criteria outlined in section 300 of the IPC including intent to cause death. Exception 1 to section 300 states that if a person loses self-control due to sudden and grave provocation and causes death, it is considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Case law has established tests for determining if a provocation was indeed sudden and grave from the perspective of a reasonable person in that situation.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    IPC Arguments Advanced 1.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The appellants argue that their actions did not amount to murder under section 302 of the IPC because it was done without criminal intent and under sudden and grave provocation. For an act to be considered murder, it must meet the criteria outlined in section 300 of the IPC including intent to cause death. Exception 1 to section 300 states that if a person loses self-control due to sudden and grave provocation and causes death, it is considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Case law has established tests for determining if a provocation was indeed sudden and grave from the perspective of a reasonable person in that situation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views4 pages

    IPC Arguments Advanced 1

    Uploaded by

    Suayushi Patnaik
    The appellants argue that their actions did not amount to murder under section 302 of the IPC because it was done without criminal intent and under sudden and grave provocation. For an act to be considered murder, it must meet the criteria outlined in section 300 of the IPC including intent to cause death. Exception 1 to section 300 states that if a person loses self-control due to sudden and grave provocation and causes death, it is considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Case law has established tests for determining if a provocation was indeed sudden and grave from the perspective of a reasonable person in that situation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Arguments Advanced

    1. The appellants cannot be convicted under Sec. 302 of IPC, as the act done by the
    appellants does not amount to murder.
    According to the provisions laid down under Sec. 300 ( Exception 1)of the IPC, the act
    was done without any criminal intention and under sheer pressure of “grave and
    sudden provocation”.
    Sec. 300 states that of IPC defines murder. It denotes that:
    “300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is
    murder, if the act by
    which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
    2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
    knows to be likely
    to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
    3rdly.—If 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,
    or—
    4thly.—If 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 aforesaid.”

    INGREDIENTS OF MURDER:
    •Death : Death of a human being, not including the death of an unborn
    child (child in mother’s womb)
    •Bodily injury which the offender knows to be likely to cause death
    •Bodily injury ordinarily sufficient to cause death
    •The act would also become murder when he does it for causing death
    with the knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous and it must in
    all probability cause death
    •That means, if a person does an act with the intention of causing death,
    it is murder.

    Elements of Murder
    For the courts to find someone guilty of murder, five elements must be present. These
    elements are mens rea, actus reus, concurrence, causation, and harm. Just like ingredients in
    a recipe, all of these elements must be present, or the act of killing cannot be classified as
    murder. Leave one element out of the equation, and it may still be a homicide, but it cannot
    be tried in a United States court as murder. Without proof of mens rea, actus reus,
    concurrence, causation, and harm, a homicide cannot be considered a murder. The following
    list explores these elements:

    Mens rea, or criminal intent, must be present. For a homicide to be murder, there must be
    the intent to kill. If there is no intent to cause harm to the other party, the act cannot be
    classified as murder.
    Actus reus is another element and means that the act was purposeful. The person
    committing the murder did so on purpose and made the conscious decision to act in such a
    manner. Actus reus can be the act of killing itself or a purposeful failure to act that results in
    the killing. Whether or not the failure to act directly caused the death, it did not happen by
    accident.
    Concurrence means that the actual act of killing and the intent to kill must take place
    simultaneously; this must also be present. If one party intends to kill another and then
    changes one's mind, concurrence is not present if the other party ends up being killed. The
    intent and the act must occur at the same time.
    Causation is another element for a homicide to be considered murder. The actual actions of
    the person committing harm must result in or directly contribute to the death in question.
    Harm is the final element. The intent to kill and the actual act of killing must result in the
    harm committed. If there is no harm, there is no murder. Person A may wish to kill or even
    plan to kill Person B, but without actually killing or acting on those plans, there is no harm.

    Exception 1: Sudden and grave provocation


    When the person losing his self-control by the sudden and grave
    provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or
    any other person due to a mistake or an accident then he will be liable for
    the culpable not amounting to murder. The essential conditions are as:

     The accused had been provoked by the deceased.


     Provocation needs to be sudden.
     Provocation needs to be grave.
     The accused had lost his self-control or controlling power.
     The accused must have caused the death of the person who gave the
    provocation.
     The accused must have caused the death during the continuance of
    his deprivation of the power of self-control.
     The accused should not have malafide intention.

    Example:

    A gives a sudden and grave provocation to B by insulting and abusing


    his father. A loses his self-control and fires a pistol at B. Therefore,
    B died immediately. A is liable for the culpable homicide not
    amounting to murder.
     Take the same example but in this case, Z was killed who was
    standing near to A.  A neither knowingly or intending to kill Z fires
    at B. But Z was killed by mistake and accident in this case also A
    will be liable for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

    In the case of K.M Nanavati vs the State of Maharashtra 1962   SCR Supl.
    (1) 567. This is a landmark case. The court observed that-

     Gestures and words under certain situations cause sudden and grave
    provocation to an accused so as to bring his action under this
    exception.
     For the purpose of determining the sudden and grave provocation, a
    test is established to find whether any other reasonable man having
    the same capacity and belonging to the same class or sections of
    society if placed in the same situations as accused would also be
    provoked as to lose his/her self control.
     The background of the previous act of victim is to be taken into
    consideration in determining whether the subsequent act was
    sufficient to cause a sudden and grave provocation.
     The fatal blow on the person giving a sudden and grave provocation
    should be immediately when he was provoked but not after the
    time which was sufficient for him to calm down or to cool down.

    Mahmood vs State  AIR 1961 All 538

    The court observed that there are certain ingredients required to fulfil in
    order to come under the ambit of this section. They are as follows.

     The provocation must be sudden- The term sudden constitutes


    two elements- the provocation needs to be unexpected.it means
    that it should not be planned beforehand. The time gap between
    provocation and homicide should be short.
     The provocation must be grave- A mere statement given by the
    accused that he was provoked will not be accepted in the Court. The
    court needs to apply the objective test for determining whether
    there was a grave provocation or not.whether the reasonable man
    would do the same act if he would be placed in the same situation
    as the offender.
     Losing a self- control- If the court is satisfied that the provocation
    was sudden and grave then the court will assume that he had lost
    his self-control.
    In the case of Muthu vs State of Tamil Nadu  on 27 September 2016, the
    Court held that continuous harassment would lead to the deprivation of the
    power of self-control. This will fall under this exception.

    Suljina Dhan vs   the State of Assam

    Facts: there was a fight between the husband and wife. The husband was
    killed by the wife through axe. The wife took the plea that the axe fell on his
    husband by mistake.

    Judgement: The Court held that the result was the outcome of the fight
    and such fight gave a sudden and grave provocation to the wife. So she
    should be fall under this exception. So the wife was liable for the culpable
    homicide not amounting to murder.

    Another aspect of their mental state is the lack of preparation on


    their part. The provocation must come unexpectedly; hence, the
    provision that the provocation must not be sought by the accused
    and must not be expected in any manner. This was reaffirmed by the
    Supreme Court in Bhura Ram & Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.
    (2008).
    Therefore, we notice that the primary focus and tests of what
    constitutes ‘grave and sudden’ are largely subjective and contingent
    on the mental state of the accused.

    You might also like