The word “murder” comes from the Germanic word “morth,” which translates to “Secret Killing.” Murder is defined as the killing of a person with the specific intent to end the life of the victim by another person or group of persons. Unless an act meets the criteria for culpable homicide under the definition of “murder” in the IPC, an offense will not qualify as “murder.” While not all responsible homicides are murders, all homicides are murders. IPC Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code defines the crime of “Murder” and lists five circumstances in which culpable homicide is not regarded as murder.
What exactly is IPC 300?
One of the laws governing the crime of “Murder” is Section 300 IPC. This clause defines culpable homicide as murder when:
1.The death was intended to be caused by the conduct that brought it about.
2.The act is carried out knowing that it will likely result in death, and with the intent to cause such physical harm.
3.The conduct is committed with the intent to harm another person physically, and the harm that is intended to be done is sufficient to result in death under normal circumstances.
4.The perpetrator is aware that his action is so immediately harmful that it will almost certainly result in death or serious bodily harm that will result in death.
Section 300’s components are as follows:
Causing Death: A death must be intended to be caused.
Acting – There must be a purpose behind the intention to cause a fatal bodily damage.
The action must be taken – it must be taken knowing that it will probably result in someone else’s death.
Clauses 1-4 of section 300 indicate the necessary elements, wherein culpable homicide equates to murder. These exceptions to section 300 of the IPC state that culpable homicide is not regarded to be murder. After defining the circumstance under which culpable homicide becomes murder, Section 300 lists some rare circumstances in which murder is reduced to culpable homicide that is punishable under Section 304 of the IPC but not Section 302 of the IPC.
The exclusions include
- a serious and unexpected provocation
- use of a legal authority
- Personal protection
- In the event of passive euthanasia, consent
- in an unplanned fight that breaks out of nowhere.
IPC 300: Is it a cognizable or non-cognizable offense?
The crime of murder is a Cognizable Offense under section 300 of the IPC, and police officers may make arrests without a court’s previous approval or order. The Court of Session adjudicates cases involving violations of Section 300.
Is IPC 300 a bailable offense or not?
It has been determined that the IPC section 300 offense is not one for which bail may be required. Additionally, it is considered a non-compoundable offense.
What is the penalty for a violation of IPC 300?
Section 302 of the IPC deals with the punishment for violating IPC 300. Crimes of homicide are punished in Section 302. Whoever commits murder is subject to the following penalties, under this Section:
- Death;
- Life behind bars;
- levying of a penalty.
How do you prosecute or defend an IPC 300 offense case?
Simply filing a First Information Report at the closest police station to the scene of the incident will initiate the case under Section 300.
How can one defend?
It is advisable that anyone who is accused of violating the provisions of Section 300 IPC or charged with an offense under that section seek an experienced criminal defense attorney. Due to the fact that the offenses under Section 300 are cognizable, non-bailable, and that the maximum penalty under Section 302 is either the death penalty or life in prison, together with a fine, for a conviction.
Whether the charge is significant or little, being accused of a crime is severe. Anyone who is charged with a crime runs the possibility of suffering severe penalties and repercussions. It is crucial to retain a knowledgeable criminal attorney for this reason. A criminal defense attorney can clarify for you:
- The type of charges brought
- whatever available safeguards
- what types of plea agreements are most likely to be provided;
- What can be anticipated following a trial or finding of guilt?
An expert attorney would fight to defend your case during the trial and would undoubtedly be advantageous to you, either by getting you an acquittal or by getting the punishment reduced.
Crucial decision
State of Karnataka v. Shariff, AIR 2003 SC1074: According to the testimony of a young witness who was the deceased’s son, the claim that the accused tied his mother’s hands and legs together and set her ablaze cannot be disproved on the grounds that the witness’s errant statement during cross-examination, in which he claimed to have been at his grandmother’s house when his mother caught fire, is reasonably reliable with regard to the facts of the incident and cannot be disproved, holding the accused accountable.
K.M. Nanavati vs. the State of Maharashtra, 1961 (AIR 1962 SC 605): The Supreme Court of India had clarified the law pertaining to provocation in this case. The judge noted that:
- The standard for determining whether there was “sudden and grave provocation” is whether a reasonable man from the same society as the accused would have been sufficiently provoked to lose control in the same situation.
- In some cases, a defendant may be suddenly and gravely provoked by words or gestures, which would qualify his actions as an exception.
- The victim’s mental history can be taken into account, along with his prior actions, to determine whether the subsequent conduct serves as an abrupt and serious provocation for committing the crime.
- The fatal blow should clearly show the impact of emotion brought on by the abrupt and serious provocation. It shouldn’t happen after the provocation has subsided as a result of passing time because doing so will give the accused room to tamper with the evidence.
Rawalpenta Venkalu vs State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 171: where the accused intentionally set fire to the one-room shack where the deceased was sleeping in order to bring about his or her death. Additionally, they secured the room’s exterior door with a lock, preventing the townspeople from rushing to the aid of the defenseless occupant.
The Supreme Court maintained the judgment of the Sessions Court, ruling that the accused’s intent to kill the deceased constituted a clear instance of murder under Section 300 and that Section 302’s death penalty should be applied.
Selvaraj vs State of Tamil Nadu (1998) 9 SCC 308: In this instance, the accused used a knife to attack the victim on his left chest from below due to a disagreement. The victim’s intestines bled out from the abdomen. In this case, the supreme court ruled that the accused’s purpose to kill the deceased was highly obvious from his or her actions and that this made them guilty of the crime of murder.