VITASTA SCHOOL OF LAW AND

HUMANITIES
BALLB 5 YEAR PROGRAM

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

SUBMITTED BY: MIR SAIMA ASHRAF

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 20th JULY, 2024
ENROLMENT NO: 20042125036
SEMESTER: VII
BATCH 2020

SIGNATURE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND
KASHMIR

2024

UNDER ARTICLE 226 READWITH 374 & 377 OF THE C.R.P.C

IN THE MATTER OF:

J.K U.T THROUGH

CONCERNED POLICE STATION----------------------------------------APPELLANT

Versus

ASIM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENT

TABLE OFCONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTIONS PRESENTED--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRAYER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS

¶ Paragraph

& And

SC SUPREME COURT

V. VERSUS

R.T RAHUL THAKUR

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
Anr. Another

ACC. Accused
Resp. Respondent

ST. State

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

Crl.A. Criminal Appeal

CAA Citizenship Amendment Act

FIR First Information Report

Govt. Government

Hon`ble Honorable

I.L.R Indian Law Reporter

UAPA Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967

Sec. Section

UOI Union Of India

Mr. Mister
COI Constitution Of India

He Rahul Thakur

No. Number

HC High Court

Ors. Others

Pg. Page

App. Appeal

Re. Reference

Pvt. Private

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Rev. Revision

Sd/ Signed

FIR First Information Report

Him Rahul Thakur

IPC Indian Penal Code 1860

Vol. Volume

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 CASES REFERRED
Mahmood vs State on 17 November, 1960
Pintoo @ Vinod Singh vs State Of M.P. on 1 December, 2017
K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November, 1961
Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (August 18, 2006)

JOURNALS REFERRED:-

1. All India Reporters

2. Crimes

3. Criminal Law Journal

4. Scale

5. Supreme Court Cases

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

BOOKS REFERRED:-

1. Basu D.D., Commentary of the Constitution of India, (8th ed., 2011), Vol.1. & Vol.2.

rd
2. C. K. Takwani & M.C. Takwani, Criminal Procedure (3 Ed., Lexis Nexis

Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2011)

3. Datar A.P., Datar on Constitution of India, (1st ed., 2001), Wadhwa and Co.

th
4. Dr. K.I. Vibhute, PSA. Pillai Criminal Law (11 Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Wadhwa, Nagpur)

5. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, (6th ed., 2010), Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Wadhwa, Vol.1.

6. John Woodroffe, Commentaries On Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (Law

Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2009)

7. Justice C.K. Thakkar, Encyclopaedia Law Lexicon, (Ashoka Law House, New Delhi,

2010)
th
8. Justice GP Singh, Principles Of Statutory Interpretation (13 Ed., Lexis Nexis

Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur)

nd
9. K.D. Gaur, Commentary on the Indian Penal Code (2 Ed., Universal Law

Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2013)

rd
10. K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law Criminology and Administration of Criminal Justice (3

Ed., Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., 2015)

11. Kashyap S.C., Constitution of India, (2006), Universal Law Publishing Co.

th
12. M.R. Mallick, R.K. Bag, A.N. Saha Criminal Reference (6 Ed., Eastern Law House,
2009)

rd
13. R. P Kathuria`s, Law of Crimes and Criminology (3 Ed.,Vinod Publications, 2014)

th
14. S.C. Sarkar, P.C. Sarkar & Sudipto Sarkar, The Code Of Criminal Procedure (11

Ed., Lexis Nexis 2015)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF APPELLANT

15. Sathe S.P., Administrative Law, (7th ed., 2004), Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa.

16. Seervai H.M., Constitutional Law of India, (4th ed., 2010), Universal Law Publishing

Co., Vol.2 & Vol.1.

17. Underhill`s Criminal Evidence, Fifth d. Vol. I, p. 664.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

This Hon’ble High court has exclusive jurisdiction under section 377 of C.R.P.C
for dealing with the present appeal of conviction by the Hon’ble sessions Court in
its verdict for convicting the respondent. So the invocation of jurisdiction for
indulgence of this Hon’ble high court with regard to present matter is legally valid
under the four corners of the constitutional parameters in accordance with law.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Asim and Amina were married in 2001 they had a son namely Aryan. Asim was a
Civil Servant and he had to frequently leave his home leaving behind his family.
The couple through a common friend met the deceased Mr. Sameer, he was
unmarried he often visit their home. Even when Asim was not present there Amina
started to go out with Sameer and he visited Asim’s house even in his absence.
On 3rd, July 2004 Asim returned home from his job and finding Amina aloof and
distant. He questioned her, Amina who now doubted Sameer’s intention to marry
her, confessed about the affairs to her husband.
On 1ST of August 2004 Asim dropped his family at his parents’ home, but excused
himself and headed straight to confront Sameer with a loaded pistol.
There was a verbal confrontation between the two men according to Mr. Asim’s
account retiled in court, He had asked Sameer whether the latter intended to marry
Amina and accept his child when the deceased replied in negative, and it was a
Provocation from the deceased three shots were fired And Mr. Sameer was
dropped dead when the case reached to sessions court, Asim argued and pleaded
not guilty. It was held by the session court that the act was done under
provocation.
An Appeal was made in High Court by the prosecution side for establishing
that it was a pre-meditated Murder and not the result of grave and sudden
provocation.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. Whether the provocation was valid or not?

2. Whether He got sufficient time to regain his self-control?

3. Whether it was a culpable homicide or Murder?

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 1. Whether the provocation was valid or not?

Before adverting to the present matter it would be beneficial to know the

settled position of law with regard to sections which has been invoked by the
investigating agency is fully established as per the material on record which
apparently corroborates each and every aspect of crime, because so far as the
facts of the present case is concerned it is prima facie circumscribes the whole
prosecution story that the respondent was having strong vengeance and envy
against the deceased person which consequently resulted into the murder of
the deceased person in mysterious circumstances.
However, it is important to mention that the respondent had acted in absolute
ruthless manner in order to accomplish his ill intent with respect to deceased
person for killing him in such a state of helplessness where nobody could help
a person to save his life from such a dastardly act and omission at the part of
the respondent and he is wholly and solely liable for prosecution of sections
enumerated in the present appeal. Sec: 300 ipc [charges mentioned under
charge sheet].

That it would be worth to mention before this Hon’ble court the observations
raised in the case

Mahmood vs State on 17 November, 1960 relevant paras of

which are reproduced for the bare perusal of the Hon’ble court to reach
the just and reasonable conclusion which are as under……………………
14. The explanation at the end of the Exception 1 Is very important for it enjoins
that the question whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent
the offence from being murder should not be treated as a question, of 1981 (2) Cri.
L.J. D.F. 38. Law, but one of fact and decided like any other question of fact. It
follows, therefore, that each-case must be considered according to its own facts
and the court must decide circumstances of that case whether the provocation
was grave and sudden enough to permit an indulgent view of the crime
committed by the accused.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

15. The question of suddenness of the provocation presents little difficulty in
practice. The court has to decide on the evidence whether the accused acted on
the impulse of the moment and while his passions were still out of control or
he had time to cool down and his decision to kill the deceased was deliberate.

16. But the provocation must be grave as well as sudden to entitle the accused to
the indulgence of the exception.
What is grave provocation is a question which has engaged the minds of
Courts in this country as well as the English and American courts.
17. In India the question has been considerably simplified by the legislature by
addition of the Explanation which says simply that the question whether the
provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting
to murder is a question of fact. Thus the law in India lays down no general
principle for determining whether any particular provocation should be recognized
as grave. The question has been deliberately reduced by the legislature to one of
fact with the object of making the court the sole arbiter in every case-

The court must consider not only the circumstances of a particular case but also the
prevailing social environment in which the parties lived, and any other relevant
fact. The legislature realized that the circumstances in which a human being may
be provoked into losing control of himself are of infinite variety, and it would be
futile to lay down a universal standard for measuring the gravity of provocation in
every case.

It is pertinent to mention before this court of law that that the accused in all
probable advent has tried to full fill his motive by taking weapon of offence
along with him which subsequently resulted into the murder of the deceased.
So, the pros and cons are fully supporting the deceased’s case whereby guilt of
the respondent can be brought home because the respondent is directly
involved in the commission of crime.

That it is further submitted the crime was committed with absolute

preparation which was coupled with ulterior motive for killing the deceased
with conscience which can be attributed against the deceased as per the
evidence on record which directly connects him with the commission of crime
and more importantly it is also worthwhile to mention that respondent was

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

having full knowledge about the consequential, sequential and incidental
parameters of the offence by virtue of which offence was committed in such a
brutal manner which is evident from the facts and circumstances that in the
present case the death was not the result of grave and sudden provocation but
was a premediated murder.
That it would be expedient to invite here the reference of judgement of the Madras
high court in the case
PINTOO @ VINOD SINGH VS STATE OF M.P. ON 1 DECEMBER, 2017
IN WHICH IT WAS HELD BY THE HONORABLE LORDSHIPS IN PARA 33. Thus, if
the facts of this case are considered, then it would be clear that the appellant went
to the house of deceased along with his licensed gun, for taking C.D. As the T.V.
was already taken away by Jaiveer Singh, therefore, Ram Kishore (P.W.1)
informed that Jaiveer Singh has taken away the T.V. and the C.D. has been kept by
his father inside the house. It is not the case that the appellant had gone to take his
C.D. back from Ramkishore. If Ramkishore was not inclined to give his C.D. to the
appellant, then the appellant had no business to start hurling abuses. The deceased
was inside the house and he objected to the act of the appellant and without any
provocation on the part of the deceased or prosecution witnesses, the appellant
fired a gun shot causing injury in the stomach of the deceased. The deceased fell
down. Thereafter, the appellant again fired two gun shots from some distance and
threatened that nobody should go to lodge the report. The manner in which the
incident is said to have taken place, it is clear that the appellant had fired gun shot
with an intention to cause death and the injury sustained by the deceased was
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thus, the act of the appellant
cannot be converted into Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. from Section 302 of I.P.C.

So keeping in view the four corners of the judgement and its aforementioned
para [33] it is aptly clear from the operative part of the judgement that the
respondent has willfully, directly, knowingly and intentionally resorted to
firing which resulted in the murder of deceased And same proposition cannot
be covered under grave and sudden provocation. [Culpable homicide not amounting to
murder][Exception to section 300] Or self-defense of the respondent.

2. Whether he got sufficient time to regain his self-control?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

That it would be beneficial for the court of law to appreciate the facts of the
case which are highly worth noting to indicate the facts that the respondent
was having much time to think and regain his self-control because it is
common parlance that when appellant got to know about the intimate relation
of his wife with the respondent who killed the deceased in consequence of that
relationship which became the utmost discord between the wife and the
husband.

That it would be profitable to take reference of the similar case, facts of

which are quite resembling with the current case and same is mentioned
below for the bare perusal of the court of law which would be a determining
factor to decide the fate of the case on same line hereasunder:-

K. M. Manavati vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November,

1961
Bearing these principles in mind, let us look at the facts of this case. When Sylvia
confessed to her husband that she had illicit intimacy with Ahuja, the latter was not
present. We will assume that he had momentarily lost his self-control. But if his
version is true-for the purpose of this argument we shall accept that what he has
said is true-it shows that he was only thinking of the future of his wife and children
and also of asking for an explanation from Ahuja for his conduct. This attitude of
the accused clearly indicates that he had not only regained his self-control, but on
the other hand, was planning for the future. Then he drove his wife and children to
a cinema, left them there, went to his ship, took a revolver on a false pretext,
loaded it with six rounds, did some official business there, and drove his car to the
office of Ahuja and then to his flat, went straight to the bed-room of Ahuja and
shot him dead Between 1-30 P.M., when he left his house, and 4-20 P.M., when
the murder took place, three hours had elapsed, and therefore there was sufficient
time for him to regain his self-control, even if he had not regained it earlier. On the
other hand, his conduct clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and
calculated one. Even if any conversation took place between the accused and the
deceased in the manner described by the accused-though we do not believe that-it
does not affect the question, for the accused entered the bed-room of the deceased
to shoot him. The mere fact that before the shooting the accused abused the
deceased and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably
be a provocation for the murder. We, therefore, hold that the facts of the case do
not attract the provisions of Exception 1 to Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

while embracing on the factual parameters of the case every fact is connecting
the respondent in later and spirit because the prosecution leaves no stone
unturned for establishing the guilt of the respondent due to which every event
of the present case is corroborated as per the sufficient evidence on record
which is impeachable in nature and can hardly be discarded by the stand of
respondent which is weak and fragile on which this Hon’ble court cannot rely
due to the unwholesome version projected by the respondent.

However it is also worthwhile to mention here the case of Appellant is fully

supported by witnesses and other facts which has serious bearing on the
present case.

3. Whether it was a culpable homicide or Murder?

That taking into account the factual matrix of the case it is clear and present on the
face of it that the same is established by the evidence on record. That offender had
premediated the plan for killing the deceased as he had taken a loaded revolver
along with him. It is also important to mention that respondent was having enough
time to sort the dispute in amicable manner which would have resulted in an
adequate reconciliation but same has not been adopted by the respondent to settle
the dispute accordingly.

It would be useful to have the recourse of law by the provisions enshrined in the
Indian penal code which are reproduced here as under:

Culpable homicide.—whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of

causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.

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—

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 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.
That keeping in view the aforesaid sections it would be worth noting that
there are two distinctions whereby intention of respondent can carved out as
per the events which took place and culminated into the murder of the
deceased.
For the proper guidance of this Hon’ble court let me draw the attention of
decided cases which are reproduced as under:

Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (August 18, 2006)

In this case, the top Court addressed the question, “Whether the offence is a murder
punishable under Section 302 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?” The bench
also highlighted the facets that should be considered while deciding on the same. It stated
that “The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few
or several of the following, among other, circumstances:

(i) nature of the weapon used;

(ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from
the spot;

(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;

(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury;

(v) whether the act was in the course of a sudden quarrel or sudden fight or
free for all fight;

(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-
meditation;

(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a
stranger;
(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the
cause for such provocation;

(ix) Whether it was in the heat of passion;

(x) Whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or
has acted in a cruel and unusual manner;

(xi) Whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.”

C MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

So far as the present case is concerned it is evident from the facts that the
respondent had carried the loaded pistol for killing deceased which is a
determining factor that the intention was clear and certain enough and which
is also enough to bring the respondent within the ambit of section 300.

That it is also worthwhile to mention that lethal weapon was used in the
commission of crime which also proves that the murder of the deceased was
premeditated.

That it is also important to submit before the court of law that the weapon of
offence was illegally carried by the respondent long before the commission of
crime and was not picked on the place of occurrence which again reflects that
the respondent was well versed about the fact that he is going to commit the
murder of the deceased.

That keeping in view the foregoing judgement mentioned above it is also

worthwhile to submit before this Hon’ble court that there was prior enmity
[in the heat of revenge] between the respondent and appellant which became
the sole reason for perpetuating the murder of the deceased.

That is also pertinent to mention here that there was no grave and sudden
provocation as the respondent side contends But taking into the consideration
of infliction of gun shorts primarily if we go by the facts of the case the
respondent had fired three gun shorts upon the deceased it is probable that
the respondent could have resorted the firing of 1 gun short below the vital
parts of the deceased rather than firing three bullets at one move. Which
again could make this Hon’ble court believe that in all probable
circumstances the respondent thrashed the deceased instantly, which
ultimately proves the fact that the act was not done under the grave and
sudden provocation nor the loss was result of self-defense made by the
respondent.

This murder cannot be said as the consequence of grave and sudden

provocation as there was proper planning from accused.

Section 300 Exception:

That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as
an excuse for is killing or doing harm to any person.

That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or
by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of
MEMORANDUM
the right of private defence. ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

It do not lies under any exception mentioned under Section 300 as there was
no grave and sudden provocation.

So the murder committed by the respondent of deceased is proved

beyond any reasonable doubt.
 PRAYER

In the premises it is therefore prayed most humbly and respectfully

that the impugned judgement is not sustainable in the eyes of law
and it is ultravires to the constitution reason being that there is
sufficient material on record which has not been appreciated by the
Ld. Trial court so it is highly probable ought under the present
circumstances MEMORANDUM
of the case theONrespondent may be convicted on the
BEHALF OF APPELLANT
merits of the case keeping in view the pronouncements decided by
the superior courts in order to convict the respondent for murder of
the deceased in the present case in the interest of justice.

PRTITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
 MIR SAIMA ASHRAF

LAW RELATED TO S. 299 AND 300

Section 299 IPC Culpable homicide:

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing
death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to
cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Illustrations

(A) A lays sticks and turfMEMORANDUM ON BEHALF

over a pit, with the intention OFcausing
of thereby APPELLANT
death, or with the knowledge
that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is
killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to
cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A
has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(C) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing
that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide,
as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Explanation 1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease
or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his
death.

Explanation 2.—where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall
be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment
the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3.—the causing of the death of a 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.
SECTION 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.

Illustrations

(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.

(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the
intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might
not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But
if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course
of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty
of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause
death.

(C) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course
of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.

(D) A without any excuse fires a 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.

Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide

is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-
control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the
person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos:—

First.—That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing
harm to any person.

Secondly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the
lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

Thirdly.—that the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation.—whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to
murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations

(A) A,under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z,

intentionally kills Y, Z's child. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was
not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or
misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.

(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at
Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but
out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable
homicide.

(C) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by

the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a
thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.

(d) A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that he does not believe a
word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion
by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.

(e)A attempts to pull Z's nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays
hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in
consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was giving by
a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander,

intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into
B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only
culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.

Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good
faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to
him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such
right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm
than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.

Illustration

Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A

draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no
other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not
committed murder, but only culpable homicide.
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner.
Explanation.—it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or
commits the first assault.
 LAW RELATED TO S. 299 AND 300

Difference Between Section 299 and 300 of IPC

Culpable homicide is a genus and murder its species. “All
murders are culpable homicide, but all culpable homicides
are not murder.”

According to Section 299 of the India Penal Code,

culpable homicide means the unlawful killing of a human
being, and this killing becomes murder when the act firstly
fulfills all the conditions of section 299 and then section
300.

Categorization in Culpable Homicide

We can divide culpable homicide into two parts:

1. Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder (CHAM) – The

act which fulfills the conditions of section 299 and then
1st part of section 300.

2. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (CHNM)

– The act which fulfills the conditions of section 299 but it
either does not fulfill the conditions laid down in section
300 or lies in exceptions to section 300, that is the second
part (if an act comes under exceptions of section 300 then
the act of murder becomes culpable homicide).
3 Differences between Section 299 and Section 300, IPC

Now, let us compare both the sections and see when does
culpable homicide amounts to murder.

1. Intention of causing death.

The phrase “an act with the intention of causing death”

has been used in sections 299 and 300
both. Then where is the difference?

Sometimes an intentional act that causes death will not

amount to murder because it falls under the five
exceptions provided in section 300, that’s culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.

So, if an intentional act which fulfills the condition of

section 299, but it goes to the second part of section 300
(exceptions), then that act does not amount to murder.

2. Bodily injury likely to cause death.

Whoever causes death by performing an act with the

intention of causing such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death.

Comparing this part of section 299 with section 300, that

is, if the act is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury where the offender knows that it is likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused. Or,

If the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily

injury to any person and where the bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death.

Bodily Injury + Intention + Knowledge = CHAM

Here, for this part, we can clearly see that an act, when
done with intention but not with knowledge, will not
amount to murder, and it will be culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

Bodily Injury + Intention = CHNM

But even if there is an absence of knowledge and the

bodily injury intended to be inflicted, in the ordinary
course of nature is sufficient, it will amount to murder.

Bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death + Intention = CHAM

3. A difference of knowledge under sections 299 and 300.

If a person causes death by doing an act with the

knowledge that he is likely by such act to
cause death.
This is the last condition laid down in section 299.

So if we raise the degree a bit higher, then the act will fall
under section 300.

If the person committing the act has the knowledge that it

is so imminently dangerous that it will in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and thereby he commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid, amounts to murder.

Knowledge is in both the cases, but the degree makes the

difference.

Example: I had a knowledge that if I give very tight two-

three slaps to an old person who is very weak, he may die
due to nervous shock. And if he dies, it will be culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.

But what if I start beating him so severely that blood

starts coming out. Knowing that the man is so weak that
he will not be able to bear the pain even for a second. And
if he dies, it will be culpable homicide amounting to
murder.
Punishment under Section 299 and 300 of IPC

The punishment for culpable homicide amounting to

murder is under section 302. Whereas, for culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, it is under section
304 of the Indian Penal Code.

When an Act Becomes Murder

So to conclude, we can say that an act becomes murder

only when first of all, it is culpable homicide and complies
with conditions under section 299, and then it fits in
section 300 too.

The intensity and degree of murder are much higher. Like

hitting someone with a bat or stick and hitting someone
with a sword is totally different.

When Culpable Homicide Is Not Murder?

Section 300 of IPC contains conditions or exceptions
under which an act of murder, if falls, will be considered
an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
It contains five exceptions that reduce the gravity of the
offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting
to murder.

The five exceptions mentioned under section 300 of the

Indian Penal Code are:
1. Grave and sudden provocation.
2. Excess use of private defence.
3. In exercise of legal power.
4. Sudden heat and fight.
5. Consent.