The Best Criminal Advocates for Murder Cases in Chandigarh are the ones profoundly versed into the intricacies of laws related to murder litigation.
Ingredients of MURDER under Section 300 of Indian Penal Code.
1) Intention to cause death –
The first clause of S. 300 stipulates that when act is done with the intention of causing death, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder. It is the action of a person with clear intention of killing a person. So, the intention of the person can be gathered from the action of the person. In Chahat Khan vs. State of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 2574, the Supreme Court observed that if injuries are inflicted on vital parts of the body with sharp edged instruments, then the intention to kill can be attributed to the offender.
Illustration:
A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
2) Intentional causing of bodily injury with knowledge that it will cause death –
The mens rea or the mental attitude contemplated under clause 2 of Section 300 IPC is twofold. First, there must be an intention to cause bodily harm. Secondly, there must be knowledge that the death is likely result or consequence of such intended bodily injury. So, the second clause of section 300 applies when there is an intention to cause bodily harm along with the subjective knowledge that death is the likely consequence of such intended bodily injury. It is said to be “subjective knowledge” because it is a matter of personal perception of the accused regarding the consequence of the act, nevertheless, the burden to prove that sufficient knowledge was not there may fall on the accused and it takes a really good criminal lawyer for murder cases who understands this intricacy well.
Illustration:
A knowing that Z is laboring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing such bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of a person in sound state of health.
3) Intentional causing of injury sufficient to cause death –
The essence of this clause is sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When the word “sufficiency is used, it means where there is a very high probability of injury resulting in death.
In Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, the Supreme Court laid down that to bring in clause (3) of Section 300 the prosecution has to prove the following;
(i) First, it must establish, quite objectively, the presence bodily injury;
(ii) Secondly, the nature of injury to be proved;
(iii) Thirdly, the intention to inflict such injury;
(iv) Fourthly, it must be proved that such injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Illustration:
A intentionally gives Z a sword cut, sufficient to cause the death of a man in ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder.
4) Knowledge that act is so imminently dangerous so as to cause death –
Clause (4) of Section 300 contemplates generally, commission of acts which are so imminently dangerous that it is likely to cause death.
The four essential ingredients to this clause are:
(i) The act must be imminently dangerous.
(ii) The person committing the act must have knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous.
(iii) That in all probability it will cause (a) death or (b) bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
(iv) Such imminently dangerous act should be done without any reason a justification for running the risk of causing death or such injury.
Illustration:
A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of person and kills one of them, A is guilty of murder although he may not have had a pre-mediated design lo kill any particular individual.
In Thangaiya vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that C. (4) of S. 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of person approximate to practical certainty.
Exceptions:
S, 300 I.P.C. after laying down the cases in which culpable homicide becomes murder, it states certain exceptional situations under which, if murder is committed, it is reduced to capable homicide not amounting to murder. The exceptions are:-
1. Grave and Sudden Provocation
2. Private defense
3. Exercise of legal power
4. Without pre mediation in a sudden fight and
5. Consent
Punishment for Murder – Section 302, I.P.C. Deals with punishment for murder.
Murder under section 302 IPC is punishable with death or with imprisonment for life and the person committing murder shall also be liable to pay fine.
It is only in complicated criminal cases in which the matter of a great criminal lawyer is proved. For example in a situation where ‘A’ fires a gunshot at ‘B’ to critically injure B and as B is being rushed to the hospital, the car meets with an accident which immediately caused B’s death and the prosecution books A for murdering B, the question arises as to whether A is liable for murdering B or not?
A real good criminal lawyer for murder cases would get into the depth and bring into consideration the intensity as well as the intention behind the act of accused – as to whether he shot B at vital parts and with an intention to kill or not. To substantiate his case, he would defend the accused by highlighting the factual situation which would reflect the accused’s participation into the act. If it is proved to the court that A did not shot at vial parts and B had no intention to kill A but to only cause bodily injury unlikely to cause death to threaten him etc.. So if the lawyer does his job really good, there are chances that murder charges against A are dropped.
