IPC Arguments Advanced 1
IPC Arguments Advanced 1
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.
Example:
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.
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.
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.