Murder is an act done with the intention of causing death or a purpose to cause bodily harm that leads to death or a sudden death. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code deals with such kind of case, i.e. offense of murder. Let’s understand more about it via this blog.
What is Section 302 IPC?
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code states that “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.” Now, the next question arises what is the meaning of murder?
Murder under Section 302 IPC
Murder is a heinous crime and is considered as an evil act within itself. Section 302 IPC deals with punishment for murder, thus, anyone who is accused of committing murder is put on trial under this section. Moreover, if a person charged with murder is proven guilty then IPC section 302 prescribes the corresponding punishment as well.
Definition of Murder (Section 300 of IPC)
Culpable homicide is a murder if intention is there. Let’s understand this with the cases given below:
1. The Act by which death is caused with the intention of a death:
Suppose a child was unwell and his family members did not take him to the hospital for the necessary treatment, due to which the child dies. Such a case comes into the category of a murder.
2. The intention to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death:
This clause would also include the cases where the victim suffers from a trauma or disease that the offender knew about it and he/she took advantage of it, which resulted in the death of a person.
3. When the injury is sufficient to cause death during the ordinary course of nature:
Under this clause, the offender must have the intention to cause a bodily injury that would lead to cause death to any person in the ordinary course of nature.
What are the exceptions to situations where the culpable homicide shall not be considered as murder?
1. Sudden and grave provocation:
A situation is not considered as culpable homicide when the person loses his self-control by the sudden provocation, leading to his death. However, the essential condition is that the accused must be provoked by the deceased. Provocation should be sudden. The accused shouldn’t have any malafide intention.
In the case - Suljina Dhan Vs. the State of Assam
The fight had occurred between husband and wife. The husband was killed by the wife with an axe. The wife took the plea that the axe had fallen on the husband by mistake. The court held that the result was the outcome of a sudden provocation on the part of the wife. Therefore, the case comes under culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
2. When the person exceeds his rights of self-defense:
When the person has a good faith that while exercising his right of private defense of property, the person exceeds the power leading to the death of the person against whom he is exercising his right without any intention.
In the case - Ranbir Singh & Ors vs State of Haryana
The Court held that the burden of proving self-defense is on the accused. Such a burden can be reduced by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by adducing the defense evidence or by laying the basis for that plea in the cross-examination of the prosecution witness.
3. When the public servant exceeds his power:
When any public servant acts for the advancement of justice and exceeds his/her powers causing the death of a person in a bonafide intention, then it is considered as necessary for the purpose of discharging his duty as a public servant. These kinds of conditions generally apply to police officers.
In the case - Dukhi Singh Vs. State
The appellant, a constable of Railway Protection Force (RPF) while discharging his duty had shot a fireman unintentionally. He had fired a shot to catch the thief who was trying to run. The court held that the constable is entitled to the benefit of this section.
4. Occurrence of sudden fight:
This situation arises when there is no intention of either party to kill a person or cause the death of a person. In this case, it doesn’t matter which party first assaulted or who offered provocation first.
In the case - Radhey Shyam and another Vs. State of U.P
The appellant got infuriated when he got to know that his calf had come to the place of the deceased and started abusing the deceased. When he was being stopped from abusing, he fired at the deceased. At the time of the fight, the accused had a weapon but the deceased was unarmed. This indicated that the appellant had an intention to kill the deceased. Hence, the case was held liable for murder.
5. When the person gives consent causing his/her death:
When the person gives consent to cause his/her death, it will be a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, the age of the person whose death is caused should be above 18 years and it must be voluntary.
In the case - Dashrath Paswan Vs. State of Bihar
The accused was a class 10th student. He was failed in the exam. He had a wife aged 19 years. He decided to end his life and told his decision to the wife. The wife asked him to kill herself first. The accused killed his wife, but before he could have killed himself, he was arrested. The court held that the deceased had given her consent. Therefore, he is entitled to take the benefit of this exception.
Is Section 302, a punishable offence?
Yes, it is a punishable offence.
What are IPC 302 punishments?
If a person is found guilty under this section, then he/she shall be punished with:
- Death
- Life imprisonment
- Fine
Now, let’s understand about the three punishments for murder under Section 302 of IPC in detail:
- Death Penalty: The death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for capital offences.
- Life Imprisonment: Imprisonments are of three types: Simple, rigorous, and solitary confinement. As the name suggests, the person spends the remaining part of his life behind the bars.
- Fine: A person charged with murder is also liable to pay a fine along with the death sentence imposed by the court.
Minimum time for bail when charged under Section 302 of the IPC Act
Under section 302 IPC, there is no stipulated time period defined for the grant of bail. The bail granted in 302 IPC depends upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Moreover, the prosecution will always try to make it difficult for the accused to get bail by providing strong reasons and evidence against the bail plea.
What is the procedure to follow, in case IPC 302 bail application is rejected?
It is not really easy to get bail when charged under IPC 302. However, you can still file a review petition before the judge for reviewing the order and grant bail. One can also file another bail application if you have a new ground to proceed further.
Is IPC 302 a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence?
IPC 302 is a cognizable offence, which means an offence in which the police officer as per the first schedule or under any other law for the time being in force can arrest the convict without any requirement of a warrant. He can also start an investigation without the permission of the court.
What is the time period of making an appeal by the appellant?
Once the judgment is given by the court, the appellant can make the appeal. The time period for filing the appeal is different in different states. Appellants need to take care of the fact that there is a fixed amount of time to lodge the complaint which cannot be extended beyond a certain amount of time.
Landmark 302 IPC judgments:
1. KM Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1961
It is one of the most talked-about section 302 IPC cases. In this case, the Supreme Court extensively explained the laws relating to provocation in India. The court observed that the case falls under "sudden and grave provocation." Under certain circumstances, words and gestures may lead to sudden and grave provocation to an accused, so as to bring his act under an exception. The mental background of the victim is taken into consideration, and it is further ascertained whether the subsequent act leads to sudden and grave provocation for committing the offense.
The fatal blow clearly traces the influence of passion that arises from sudden and grave provocation. It should not be after the provocation has cooled down due to the lapse of time, otherwise, it will give room to the accused altering the evidence.
2. Abdul Ise Suleman Vs. State of Gujarat, 1994
In this case, the accused freely fired on the fleeing complainant in a commercial locality. The person was injured in the first shot, whereas the ten-year-old complainant was dead in the second shot. The Supreme Court held that the death of the child was intentional. Therefore, Section 300 is applied read with Section 301 of IPC.
3. Nathan Vs. State of Madras, 1972
In this case, the landlord was trying forcefully to evict the accused. But the accused killed the landlord while exercising his right to private defense. The accused was not in any fear as the deceased was not holding any deadly weapon that could have led to the death of the accused or grievous hurt. The deceased had no intention to kill the accused, therefore, the accused exceeded his right to private defense. The accused was liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
4. Radhey Syam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018
In this case, the appellant was extremely angry as he got to know that his calf had come to the deceased's place. The appellant started abusing the deceased. When the latter tried to stop him, the appellant fired at the deceased. Hence, the appellant had an intention to kill the deceased, and that's why he was liable for murder.
5. Muthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007
In this case, the Supreme Court held that constant harassment may deprive a person of the power of self-control, amounting to grave provocation. The act of private defense can be said to have been exercised when the act is committed to defend oneself from further harm. If the accused intentionally exceeds his right to private defense, then he will be liable for murder. If it is unintentional, then the accused will be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
