Offences Against Human Body Under Indian Laws
Offences Against Human Body Under Indian Laws
Offences Against Human Body Under Indian Laws
Introduction
Under Indian Penal Code, offences against human body are defined.
Humans, who claim to be the only intelligible species on this earth, feel
they have humanity amongst them but the fact is that the humans in
21st century are the ones who do not have a humanistic approach;
they are self-centered. They think only about themselves and can go
to any extent to achieve what they want; even harming the other
person.
Culpable Homicide,
Murder,
Dowry Death,
Kidnapping- Abduction,
Rape,
Murder
Homicide (Latin homo- man, cide-cut) is the killing of a human
being by a human being. Causing the death of an animal is not
murder. It might amount to the offence of mischief or to cruelty to
animals. It may be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide (cases
falling under General Exceptions- Secs. 76-106)) is of two types -
excusable and justified homicide.
Unlawful homicide includes:
I. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec. 299),
Illustrations
A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing
death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused.
Z, believing the ground to be firm, falls in and is killed. A has
committed the offence of culpable homicide.
The word knowledge includes all cases of rash acts by which death is
caused, for rashness imports a knowledge of the likely result of an act
which the actor does inspite of the risk. In some cases, gross
negligence may amount to knowledge. For example, where the
accused kills a person by hitting him under the belief that he was
hitting at a ghost.
Even the fact that victim dies because of wrong treatment could not
absolve the accused of his guilt. If victim dies as a result of the original
injuries as well as the operation, the accused will be guilty.
Explanation III: The causing of the death of child in the mother's
womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to
cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been
brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been
completely born.
Sec.301
Illustrations
A without any excuse fires loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and
kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had
a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
Clause (b) of Sec. 299 corresponds with cls. (2) and (3) of Sec.
300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under cl. (2)
is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular
victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health (e.g.
enlarged spleen) that the intentional harm caused is likely to be fatal,
notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way
of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in health (see
illustration (b) to Sec. 300). Clause (b) of Sec. 299 does not postulate
any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Thus, if the assailant
had no knowledge about the disease of the victim, nor an intention to
cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which
caused the death was intentionally given.
A person inflicting a violent blow on the head of his victim with a lethal
weapon such as an ironstone must be presumed to intend to cause
such injury as he knew was likely to cause death.
The second part requires that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When
both these parts are satisfied, then the offence is under Sec. 300
thirdly. It does not matter that there was no intention (or knowledge)
to cause death. [Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC
465].
An act done with the knowledge of its consequences is not prima facie
murder. It becomes murder only if it can be positively affirmed that
there was no excuse. When a risk is incurred even a risk of the gravest
possible character which must normally result in death - the taking of
that risk, is not murder, when there is an excuse to do so [Emperor
v. Dhirajia, AIR 1940 All. 486]. In the above case, a woman
jumped into a well with a baby in her arms due to panic or fright
caused by her incoming husband with whom she had quarreled.
The court held that the act of jumping into a well with a baby in one's
arm was so imminently dangerous an act that however primitive a
person may be and however frightened he or she may be, the
knowledge of the likely consequences must be supposed to have
remained with him or her. The court held it to be a case of culpable
homicide. However, she had an excuse and that excuse was panic or
fright.
Thus, the clause 4thly was not attracted. She was held guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 304.
Part III applies. If offence comes under clause 3 of Sec. 299 (only
knowledge), than PartIV applies. If the offence falls within clauses 1, 2
and 3 of Sec. 300 but is covered by any of the five exceptions, it will
be punishable under Part I. If the offence comes under clause 4 of
Sec. 300 but is covered by any of the exceptions, it will be punishable
underPartII.
Provocation,
Strictly speaking, they are not exactly defenses, but are in the nature
of mitigating or extenuating circumstances. Burden is on the accused
to establish circumstances which would bring his case within any
exception. However, the general burden to establish the guilt of the
accused is on the prosecution.
Exception I,
Illustrations
The provocation must be both grave and sudden and should not be
from the side of the accused.
In the above case, the wife confessed to husband of her illicit intimacy
with one Ahuja. The accused drove his wife and children to a cinema,
left them there, went to his ship, took a revolver, drove his car to
Ahuja's flat and shot him dead. Between his wife's confession and
Ahuja's murder, three hours had elapsed, and therefore the accused
had sufficient time to regain his self control. His conduct clearly shows
that the murder was a deliberate and calculated one. Consequently,
Exception 1 do not apply.
Where an accused sees his wife in company with her lover and kills
her, he must be held to have acted under grave and sudden
provocation [Fatta v. Emperor, 30 Cr. L.J. 481]. However, mere
suspicion of unchastity would not be a sudden provocation. A
statement by the wife that she intends to commit adultery or live with
another person is not grave and sudden provocation
He must believe in good faith that the act which resulted in the death
was lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duties.
Death has arisen from any other supervening act or intervention which
could not have been anticipated, i.e. death was not the direct or
proximate result of the rash or negligent act,
Sec. 304-A applies where there is a direct nexus between the death
of a person and the rash or negligent act. The act must be the causa
causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua
non. Criminal rashness' is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without
intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused.
The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with
recklessness or indifference as to its consequences (i.e. without belief
in the result of such doing).
The mere fact that a fatal motor run-over accident took order to
impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that
a collision was entirely or at least mainly due to rashness or negligence
on the part of the driver. An error of judgment on the part of the
driver would not make him liable under Sec. 304-A.
In Cherubin Gregory v State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 205), the
accused fixed up a naked live electric wire in the passage to latrine so
that no trespasser may come and use the latrine. There was no
warning that the wire was live. A trespasser, who manages to enter
the latrine without touching the wire, happens to receive a shock while
coming out and dies soon. It was held that the act of the accused was
an actionable wrong under Sec. 304-A. The mere fact that the person
entering a land is a trespasser does not entitle the owner or occupier
to inflict on him personal injury by direct violence or indirectly by
doing something on the land the effect of which he must know was
likely to cause serious injury to the trespasser.
The Court also held that there was no negligence on the part of the
driver: Where a level crossing is unmanned it may be right to insist
that the driver of a vehicle should stop and look both way to see if a
train is approaching. But where a level crossing is protected by a
gateman and gateman opened out the gate allowing vehicles to pass,
it will be too much to expect of any reasonable and prudent driver to
stop his vehicle and look out for any approaching train. The Court held
that the accident was due to the negligence of the gateman.
Distinction between Civil and Criminal Negligence
First-Emasculation.
Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer
to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable
to follow his ordinary pursuits.
The mere fact that the injured remained in the hospital for 20 days
would not be enough to conclude that he was unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits during that period.
When the act the accused did in the process of causing hurt, is such as
any person of ordinary intelligence knows it likely to cause grievous
hurt, he may safely be taken to have intended or contemplated
grievous hurt. In the present case, there could have been no intention
on the part of accused to cause grievous hurt.
But the way in which he assaulted his brother (who did not tried to
defend himself), he should have known that he was likely to cause
grievous hurt. Three ribs and the spleen of the deceased was ruptured
- these injuries could not have been caused unless blows were given to
the deceased with great force.
Having regard to the relationship between the parties and also the fact
that this unfortunate incident occurred on the spur of the moment due
to provocation given by the deceased himself and also considering the
fact that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the appellant
either to kill him or to cause him such bodily injury as was likely to
cause his death. Thus, the act of the accused amounts to grievous hurt
even though the death has resulted.
If the kidnapped girl turns out be under 18 years of age, the kidnapper
must take the consequences, even though he bona fide believed and
had reasonable ground for believing that she was over eighteen [R. v.
Prince (1875) L.R.2],
The defence that the girl was of easy virtue would not be sufficient to
make accused not liable. Analysis of Sec. 361
is intended more for the protection of the minors and persons of
unsound mind than for the right of guardians of such persons.
Taking or enticing - The word takes means to cause to go, to escort
or to get into the possession; it does not imply force, actual or
constructive. When the accused takes the minor with, whether she was
willing or not, the act of taking is complete.
Dowry Death:
Dowry is the main reason which has resulted in female feticide and
infanticide. Since centuries the death of many unborn girls has taken
place because of dowry.
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has also been passed to protect the
evil of dowry.
Rape:
Rape has been a serious menace in today's era. A hell lot of rape cases
are being heard in India the recent being raping and murder of an
eight-year-old girl, Asifa whose death once again united the whole
nation to fight for a common cause. Earlier the nation was united to
fight for the Nirbhaya Gang rape case.
It is the society because of which the rape victims are unable to boost
themselves. The concept of Victim Blaming is very much prevalent in
Indian society though steps are taken to eradicate it. According to this
concept, people blame the victim for her rape rather than the
perpetrator.
Society passes such comments, Why was the girl out of the house
after 10, Why was she wearing such a short dress, What was she
doing at such a place where people don't usually go, She might have
asked for etc. Such remark of the society accuses the woman of her
rape rather than the actual accused. Rape is Rape and nothing can
justify rape. Even if the perpetrator was drunk and then raped a
woman cannot justify his committing rape.
A murderer kills the body but a rapist kills the soul. - Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Krishna Iyer
Crimes are committed in every part of the world and there is not a
single country that is crime-free. Countries still have to struggle to
bring a complete stoppage on crimes against the human body because
humans are having emotions and in the course of their life various
emotions such as revenge, jealousy, ego are expected to crop up and
because of all this they commit a crime.