Law Web: What is distinction between guilty intention and guilty knowledge as mentioned in part 1 and part 2 of S 304 of IPC and how it affects punishment which can be awarded to accused?

60. Few important principles of law discernible from the

aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:-

(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what

offence the accused could be said to have committed, the

true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the

accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was

such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of

the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single

injury was caused. To illustrate : 'A' is bound hand and foot.

'B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of 'A',

shoots 'A' in his head killing him instantaneously. Here,

there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of 'B'

in shooting 'A' was to kill him, though only single injury was

caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling

within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another

instance, 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A' while

the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest

of 'A', 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of 'A' and

runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter. The injury to 'A' was

found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause

death. There may be no difficulty in holding that 'B'

intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be

caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in

the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would

bring the act of 'B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the

IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although

only single injury was caused.

(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused

may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC,

the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder,

will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's

case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in

that section. In the event of the case falling within any of

those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide

not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section

304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall

within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would

be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as

to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the

intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that

only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be

attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the

IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable

homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of

the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section,

if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it

would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case

fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.

(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person

falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable

homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is

punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however,

it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the

second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part

of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’

whereas the second part would apply when there is no such

intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’.

(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury

was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in

the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the

requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are

fulfilled and the offence would be murder.

(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes

of cases: (i) when the case falls under one or the other of

the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the

exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not

of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the

expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is

generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and

the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the

IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that

death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause

death or an injury likely to cause death.

To put it more succinctly, the difference between

the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the

first part, the crime of murder is first established and the

accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to

Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the

crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for

the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence

punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC,

the accused need not bring his case within one of the

exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.

(6) The word 'likely' means probably and it is distinguished

from more 'possibly'. When chances of happening are even

or greater than its not happening, we may say that the

thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the

court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and

then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by

the act he was likely to cause death.

(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299

of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always

to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge

under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of

unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide

amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder

would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case

is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the

IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are

pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on

record, the prosecution must still be required under the law

to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section

300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the

prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any

one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely,

1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out

and the case may be one of culpable homicide not

amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the

IPC.

(8) The court must address itself to the question of mens

rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the

assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the

deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct

evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn

from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must

necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used,

part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force

used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the

circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.

(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a

culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury

or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to

cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if

death has actually been caused and intention to cause such

injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts

resulting in the injury or injuries.

(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in

the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle,

can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to

cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in

the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the

required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which

has to be determined on the facts of each case.

(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the

intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily

injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he

inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the

victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of

Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.

(12) In determining the question, whether an accused had

guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a

single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient

in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact

that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight

or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury

was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a

simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty

knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304

Part II of the IPC.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2043 OF 2023

ANBAZHAGAN Vs THE STATE

Author: J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :

Dated: JULY 20, 2023.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused and is

directed against the judgment and order passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Madras dated 04.04.2019 in Criminal

Appeal No. 193 of 2019 by which the High Court dismissed the

appeal filed by the appellant herein thereby affirming the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Sessions Case No. 41

of 2017.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the

appellant herein and his father were put on trial in the Court of

the Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Sessions Case No.

41 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). The

Trial Court held the appellant herein guilty for the offence of

culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under

Section 304 Part I of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.

10,000/- and in default of payment of the amount of fine,

further rigorous imprisonment of one year. The co-accused i.e.

father of the appellant herein came to be acquitted by the Trial

Court.

4. The appellant herein being dissatisfied with the judgment

and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court

went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed

the appeal affirming the conviction of the appellant herein for

the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

5. At the outset, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, the learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellant herein, submitted that he is

not pressing this appeal on merits. He submitted that his only

endeavour is to persuade this Court to alter the conviction of

the appellant from the offence punishable under Section 304

Part I of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC and reduce the

sentence accordingly.

FACTUAL MATRIX

6. It appears from the evidence on record that the appellant

is an agriculturist. He owns agriculture land in a village by

name Sirukinathupalayam situated in Tamil Nadu. The

deceased namely Balasubramaniam was also an agriculturist

and had his own agriculture land adjacent to the agriculture

land of the appellant herein. There was a pathway leading to

the agriculture land of the appellant over which the deceased

had some issues. At the time of the incident, the appellant had

cultivated Cassava plants (Tapoica) which was ready for

harvesting. On 25.10.2015 at around 7 am, the appellant and

his father were harvesting the crop and had also arranged for a

lorry for transporting the same from their field. At around 11

am, the deceased came at the place of the incident and

threatened the driver of the lorry saying he should not drive his

lorry through the pathway leading to the agriculture field of the

appellant. At that point of time, the appellant and his father

were in their field. The appellant is said to have asked the driver

of the lorry to move the lorry to his field to load the crop. This

was questioned by the deceased which resulted in a quarrel. It is

the case of the prosecution that after verbal altercation between

the appellant and the deceased for quite some time, the

appellant is alleged to have picked up a “Hoe” (Kalaikottu – in

Tamil, a gardening tool with a small metal blade attached with a

wooden handle used mainly for weeding) & inflicted a single

blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which the

deceased fell unconscious and later died in the hospital.

7. The FIR was lodged on 25.10.2015 at 19.30 Hrs. On

completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet for the

offence of murder. The case was committed to the Court of

Sessions as the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions

Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal vide order

dated 06.09.2017 framed the following charge:-

“Whereas the deceased Balasubramaniam has been

living with his wife Baby and family members at

Sevalkattu Moolai near Government High School in

Pandamangalam; that the Al is the son of A2; that

both the accused were living in Poosaripalayam; in

Sirukinatrypalayan: both the accused and the

deceased Balasubramaniarn had their agricultural

lands adjacent to each other's lands; that there was a

pathway between both these lands and that there has

been a prior enmity for a longtime regarding the

ownership of that pathway between both parties. On

25.10.2015 at 07.30 hrs Al and A2 were loading

tapioca cultivated and harvested in their lands on to a

lorry owned by one Mr. Palanival, having the

registration number TN 33 AF 3114 by parking that

lorry on the disputed pathway. At that time the

deceased Balasubramaniam came there and told

them that the lorry could not be led in and blocked it.

Then A2 yelled at the deceased Balasubramaniam

saying "You do not have a pathway here. You may

bring anyone you want" and then Al and A2 pushed

the deceased Balasubramaniam down and with an

intention to murder him Al had hit the head of the

deceased Balasubramaniam with a "weed removing

axe" (Kalaikothi) while A2 was pelting stones at him

whereby the deceased Balasubramaniam sustained

grievous injuries on his head. Balasubramaniam was

immediately carried to the Government Hospital in

Velur, then taken to Government Hospital in Namakkal

where he did not respond to treatment and was

declared dead at 05.20 pm. Therefore you the accused

have committed an offense punishable under 302 IPC

and which can be tried by this court.

I hereby issue an order that both of you Al and

A2 should be tried by this court for the commission of

the above offense.”

8. The appellant and the co-accused (father of the appellant)

pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charge and claimed to be

tried. It appears that the prosecution examined many

witnesses. However, PW 8 – Chidambaram and PW 9 – Jeeva are

the main witnesses being the eye witnesses to the occurrence.

Both the eye witnesses have deposed that on the date of the

incident the appellant herein and the deceased picked up verbal

altercation in regard to the pathway and the appellant is said to

have inflicted one blow with the weapon of offence as

enumerated above on the head of the deceased leading to his

death.

ORAL EVIDENCE

9. PW-8 namely Chidambaram in his examination in chief

has deposed as under:-

“I am now residing in Indira Nagar, Thaathaiyangar

Patti. I am working as Lorry Driver. I know the present

accused. About 3 years back I took my lorry to

Anbazhagan's field in Poosari Palayam for

transporting harvest of tapioca. Subramani,

Veerasamy, Raja Manikkam and Jeeva accompanied

me. While Subramani, Veerasamy, Raja Manikkam

and Jeeva were harvesting the tubers of tapioca the

person belonging to the adjacent field told us that the

lorry should not move any further since he the

accused have a dispute regarding the pathway in

which the lorry was on. I climbed into my lorry. At that

time the accused Anbazhagan was plucking tapioca in

his field. He then asked me to bring the lorry near his

field. I told him about what the neighbor told me. But

as I took my lorry ahead a verbal fight broke out

between Anbazhagan and the neighbor. Then A2

came to that place. She was yelling too. With the axe

M.O.1 in his right hand, A1 Anbazhagan hit the

neighbor on his head. The neighbor suffered injuries

on his mouth.”

10. PW-9 namely Jeeva in his examination in chief has

deposed as under:-

“I am now residing in Indira Nagar, Thaathaiyangar

Patti. I I am a coolie. I know the accused present

here. I went to pluck tapioca tubers in the garden of

the accused Anbazhagan along with Chidambaram,

Subramani, Veerasamy, Raja Manikkam between

07.30 & 08.00 am on 25.10.2015 at Poosari

Palayam. We went inside the field with Anbazhagan

to gather the tubers. When we were clearing the

plants after gathering the tubers Chidambaram drove

the lorry inside the field. Immediately the deceased

Balasubramaniam came inside. He was shouting at

the driver and asked him as to who gave him the

authority to enter inside. He told this to Anbazhagan.

The deceased Balasubramaniam was standing on

the road. Both the accused present there were

gathering tapioca. Incidentally the accused and the

deceased started getting into a verbal quarrel. We are

securing the plucked tubers. The fight became bigger.

Hearing the louder sound we all came over to the

road where the verbal fight was going on. At that

time the accused hit the deceased at his head with

the wedding axe causing injury. He fell down

immediately.”

11. PW-18 Dr. Anbumalar in her examination in chief has

state as under:-

“I am currently working as a Senior Doctor in

Namakkal Government District Head Hospital. On

26.10.2015, while I was on duty then the body of one

Balasubramaniam (57 years old) was brought by one

Arunagiri, Head constable for post- mortem

examination with permission letter and accordingly

on 26.10.2015 at 2.15 PM, the post- mortem was

performed. The details of the post- mortem

examination are as follows –

External injuries respectively,

There was bleeding from the ear and nose, above the

left eye brow 3×2 cm cut injury. A cut injury

measuring 4 × 2 cm was found on the left forehead.

The front skull bone was fractured on both sides (Both

parietal bone).

Internal Inspection Details-

The skull bone was broken and the inner lining was

torn. Left Side Temporal Bone 7.5 cm. was broken.

There was a blood clot at the base of the skull. The

inside of the sprout was red. Navicular bone was

correct. Left ribs 3 and 4 were fractured.”

12. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence on record and more particularly having

regard to the genesis of the occurrence; the manner of assault

and the nature of the weapon, took the view that the case was

not one of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC but

could be said one of culpable homicide not amounting to

murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and

accordingly sentenced the appellant herein.

13. The High Court also came to the conclusion that the

Trial Court was right in holding the appellant herein guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

14. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is

here before this Court with the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

15. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, the learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellant herein submitted that considering the manner

in which the incident had occurred and the role attributed to

the appellant, the conviction deserves to be altered from Section

304 Part I of the IPC to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

According to the learned senior counsel, the case does not fall

within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC. All that can be

attributed to the appellant is ‘knowledge’ and ‘not intention’.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT STATE

16. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent State on the other hand, submitted that the

Trial Court as well as the High Court rightly held the appellant

herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I

of the IPC. According to the learned counsel, the case is not one

falling within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of the IPC. He

would submit that the case falls within clause thirdly of Section

300 of the IPC. He submitted that exception 4 to Section 300 of

the IPC is attracted and therefore, the courts rightly convicted

the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part

I of the IPC.

ANALYSIS

17. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and having gone through the materials on record, the

only question that falls for our consideration is whether the

conviction of the appellant herein for the offence punishable

under Section 304 Part I of the IPC should be further altered to

Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

18. We have given more than a fair idea as regards the

genesis of the occurrence and the role attributed to the

appellant herein. Dr. Karthikeyan (PW-15) was examined by the

prosecution in his capacity as the Medical Officer who

performed the post mortem of the deceased. In the post mortem

report, the doctor has noted three injuries, (i) cut injury over 4 x

2 cm on the left eye, (ii) cut injury 4 x 3 cm on the left forehead,

and (iii) 4 x 2 cm contusion around the left eye. The cause of

death assigned in the post mortem report appears to be shock

and haemorrhage due to head injury.

19. As the only argument canvassed before us is that the

case does not travel beyond culpable homicide as the same falls

within the third part of Section 299 of the IPC, the accused

could only be said to have knowledge that he is likely by his act

to cause death and not the intention to kill the deceased, we

must explain the fine distinction between the terms ‘intent’ and

‘knowledge’.

INTENT AND KNOWLEDGE :-

20. The word “intent” is derived from the word archery or

aim. The “act” attempted to must be with “intention” of killing a

man.

21. Intention, which is a state of mind, can never be precisely

proved by direct evidence as a fact; it can only be deduced or

inferred from other facts which are proved. The intention may be

proved by res gestae, by acts or events previous or subsequent

to the incident or occurrence, on admission. Intention of a

person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced

from the facts and circumstances of a case. There are various

relevant circumstances from which the intention can be

gathered. Some relevant considerations are the following:-

1. The nature of the weapon used.

2. The place where the injuries were inflicted.

3. The nature of the injuries caused.

4. The opportunity available which the accused gets.

22. In the case of Smt. Mathri v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964

SC 986, at page 990, Das Gupta J. has explained the concept of

the word ‘intent’. The relevant observations are made by

referring to the observations made by Batty J. in the

decision Bhagwant v. Kedari, I.L.R. 25 Bombay 202. They are

as under:-

“The word “intent” by its etymology, seems to have

metaphorical allusion to archery, and implies “aim”

and thus connotes not a casual or merely possible

result-foreseen perhaps as a not improbable incident,

but not desired-but rather connotes the one object for

which the effort is made-and thus has reference to

what has been called the dominant motive, without

which, the action would not have been taken.”

(Emphasis supplied)

23. In the case of Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC

488, at page 490, the following observations have been made by

Chadrasekhara Aiyar J.:-

“6. ... Of course, we have to distinguish between

motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something

which prompts a man to form an intention and

knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of

the act. In many cases intention and knowledge

merge into each other and mean the same thing more

or less and intention can be presumed from

knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge

and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to

perceive that they connote different things. Even in

some English decisions, the three ideas are used

interchangeably and this had led to a certain amount

of confusion.”

(Emphasis supplied)

24. In para 9 of the judgment, at page 490, the observations

made by Coleridge J. in Reg. v. Monkhouse, (1849) 4 COX CC

55(C), have been referred to. They can be referred to, with

advantage at this stage, as they are very illuminating:-

“The inquiry as to intent is far less simple than that

as to whether an act has been committed, because

you cannot look into a man's mind to see what was

passing there at any given time. What he intends can

only be judged of by what he does or says, and if he

says nothing, then his act alone must guide you to

your decision. It is a general rule in criminal law, and

one founded on common sense, that juries are to

presume a man to do what is the natural

consequence of his act. The consequence is

sometimes so apparent as to leave no doubt of the

intention. A man could not put a pistol which he

knew to be loaded to another's head, and fire it off,

without intending to kill him; but even there the state

of mind of the party is most material to be

considered. For instance, if such an act were done by

a born idiot, the intent to kill could not be inferred

from the act. So if the defendant is proved to have

been intoxicated, the question becomes a more subtle

one; but it is of the same kind, namely; was he

rendered by intoxication entirely incapable of forming

the intent charged?” (Emphasis supplied)

25. Bearing in mind the test suggested in the aforesaid

decision and also bearing in mind that our legislature has used

two different terminologies ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ and separate

punishments are provided for an act committed with an intent

to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death and for an

act committed with a knowledge that his act is likely to cause

death without intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to

cause death, it would be proper to hold that ‘intent’ and

‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other. They connote

different things. Sometimes, if the consequence is so apparent,

it may happen that from the knowledge, intent may be

presumed. But it will not mean that ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ are

the same. ‘Knowledge’ will be only one of the circumstances to

be taken into consideration while determining or inferring the

requisite intent.

26. In the case In re Kudumula Mahanandi Reddi, AIR

1960 AP 141, also the distinction between ‘knowledge’ and

‘intention’ is aptly explained. It is as under:-

“Knowledge and intention must not be confused.

17. … Every person is presumed to intend the

natural and probable consequences of his act until

the contrary is proved. It is therefore necessary in

order to arrive at a decision, as to an offender's

intention to inquire what the - natural and probable

consequences of his acts would be. Once there is

evidence that a deceased person, sustained injuries

which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature

to cause death, the person who inflicted them could

be presumed to have intended those natural and

probable consequences. His offence would fall under

the third head of sec. 300, I.P.C.

18. … A man's intention has to be inferred from what

he does. But there are cases in which death is

caused and the intention which can safely be

imputed to the offender is less grave. The degree of

guilt depends upon intention and the intention to be

inferred must be gathered from the facts proved.

Sometimes an act is committed which would not in

an ordinary case inflict injury sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death, but which

the - offender knows is likely to cause the death.

Proof of such knowledge throws light upon his

intention.

19. …Under sec. 299 there need be no proof of

knowledge, that the bodily injury intended was likely

to cause death. Before deciding that a case of

culpable homicide amounts to murder, there must be

proof of intention sufficient to bring it under Sec.300.

Where the injury deliberately inflicted is more than

merely ‘likely to cause death’ but sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death, the higher

degree of guilt is presumed.” (Emphasis

supplied)

It has been further observed therein as under:-

“26. …Where the evidence does not disclose that

there was any intention, to cause death of the

deceased but it was clear that the accused had the

knowledge that their acts were likely to cause death

the accused can be held guilty under the second part

of sec. 304, I.P.C. The contention that in order to

bring the case under the second part of sec. 304,

I.P.C. it must be brought within one of the exceptions

to sec 300, I.P.C. is not acceptable.”

(Emphasis supplied)

27. Thus, while defining the offence of culpable homicide and

murder, the framers of the IPC laid down that the requisite

intention or knowledge must be imputed to the accused when

he committed the act which caused the death in order to hold

him guilty for the offence of culpable homicide or murder as the

case may be. The framers of the IPC designedly used the two

words ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’, and it must be taken that the

framers intended to draw a distinction between these two

expressions. The knowledge of the consequences which may

result in the doing of an act is not the same thing as the

intention that such consequences should ensue. Except in cases

where mens rea is not required in order to prove that a person

had certain knowledge, he “must have been aware that certain

specified harmful consequences would or could follow.” (Russell

on Crime, Twelfth Edition, Volume 1 at page 40).

28. This awareness is termed as knowledge. But the

knowledge that specified consequences would result or could

result by doing an act is not the same thing as the intention

that such consequences should ensue. If an act is done by a

man with the knowledge that certain consequences may follow

or will follow, it does not necessarily mean that he intended

such consequences and acted with such intention. Intention

requires something more than a mere foresight of the

consequences. It requires a purposeful doing of a thing to

achieve a particular end. This we may make it clear by referring

to two passages from leading text-books on the subject. Kenny

in his Outlines of Criminal Law, Seventeenth Edition at page

31 has observed:-

“To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach

a desired objective; the noun ‘intention’ in the present

connexion is used to denote the state of mind of a man

who not only foresees but also desires the possible

consequences of his conduct…….. It will be noted that

there cannot be intention unless there is also foresight,

since a man must decide to his own satisfaction, and

accordingly must foresee, that to which his express

purpose is directed……… Again, a man cannot intend

to do a thing unless he desires to do it.”

(Emphasis supplied)

29. Russell on Crime, Twelfth Edition, 1st Volume at page 41

has observed:-

“In the present analysis of the mental element in

crime the word “intention” is used to denote the

mental attitude of a man who has resolved to bring

about a certain result if he can possibly do so. He

shapes his line of conduct so as to achieve a

particular end at which he aims………… Differing

from intention, yet closely resembling it, there are two

other attitudes of mind, either of which is sufficient to

attract legal sanctions for harm resulting from action

taken in obedience to its stimulus, but both of which

can be denoted by the word “recklessness”. In each

of these the man adopts a line of conduct with the

intention of thereby attaining an end which he does

desire, but at the same time realises that this conduct

may also produce another result which he does not

desire. In this case he acts with full knowledge that

he is taking the chance that this secondary result will

follow. Here, again, if this secondary result is one

forbidden by law, then he will be criminally

responsible for it if it occurs. His precise mental

attitude will be one of two kinds-(a) he would prefer

that the harmful result should not occur, or (b) he is

indifferent as to whether it does or does not occur.”

(Emphasis supplied)

30. The phraseology of Sections 299 and 300 respectively of

the IPC leaves no manner of doubt that under these Sections

when it is said that a particular act in order to be punishable be

done with such intention, the requisite intention must be proved

by the prosecution. It must be proved that the accused aimed or

desired that his act should lead to such and such consequences.

For example, when under Section 299 it is said “whoever causes

death by doing an act with the intention of causing death” it

must be proved that the accused by doing the act, intended to

bring about the particular consequence, that is, causing of

death. Similarly, when it is said that “whoever causes death by

doing an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as

is likely to cause death” it must be proved that the accused had

the aim of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause

death.

31. Thus, in order that the requirements of law with regard

to intention may be satisfied for holding an offence of culpable

homicide proved, it is necessary that any of the two specific

intentions must be proved. But, even when such intention is not

proved, the offence will be culpable homicide if the doer of the

act causes the death with the knowledge that he is likely by his

such act to cause death, that is, with the knowledge that the

result of his doing his act may be such as may result in death.

32. The important question which has engaged our careful

attention in this case is, whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case we should maintain the conviction of

the appellant herein for the offence under Section 304 Part I or

we should further alter it to Section 304 Part II of the IPC?

SECTIONS 299 AND 300 OF THE IPC:-

33. Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC deal with the definition

of ‘culpable homicide’ and ‘murder’, respectively. In terms of

Section 299, ‘culpable homicide’ is described as an act of

causing death (i) with the intention of causing death or (ii) with

the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause

death, or (iii) with the knowledge that such an act is likely to

cause death. As is clear from a reading of this provision, the

former part of it emphasises on the expression ‘intention’ while

the latter upon ‘knowledge’. Both these are positive mental

attitudes, however, of different degrees. The mental element in

‘culpable homicide’, that is, the mental attitude towards the

consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge.

Once an offence is caused in any of the three stated manners

noted-above, it would be ‘culpable homicide’. Section 300 of the

IPC, however, deals with ‘murder’, although there is no clear

definition of ‘murder’ in Section 300 of the IPC. As has been

repeatedly held by this Court, ‘culpable homicide’ is the genus

and ‘murder’ is its species and all ‘murders’ are ‘culpable

homicides’ but all ‘culpable homicides’ are not ‘murders’.

(see Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 289)

34. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu

Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382, this Court, while clarifying the

distinction between these two terms and their consequences,

held as under:-

“12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, ‘culpable

homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ is species. All

‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa.

Speaking generally, ‘culpable homicide not amounting

to murder’. For the purpose of fixing punishment,

proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the

Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable

homicide. The first is what may be called ‘culpable

homicide of the first degree’. This is the greatest form

of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300

as ‘murder’. The second may be termed as ‘culpable

homicide of the second degree’. This is punishable

under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is

‘culpable homicide of the third degree’. This is the

lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment

provided for it is, also, the lowest among the

punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable

homicide of this degree is punishable under the

second part of Section 304.”

(Emphasis supplied)

35. Section 300 of the IPC proceeds with reference to Section

299 of the IPC. ‘Culpable homicide’ may or may not amount to

‘murder’, in terms of Section 300 of the IPC. When a ‘culpable

homicide is murder’, the punitive consequences shall follow in

terms of Section 302 of the IPC, while in other cases, that is,

where an offence is ‘culpable homicide not amounting to

murder’, punishment would be dealt with under Section 304 of

the IPC. Various judgments of this Court have dealt with the

cases which fall in various classes of firstly, secondly, thirdly

and fourthly, respectively, stated under Section 300 of the IPC. It

would not be necessary for us to deal with that aspect of the

case in any further detail.

36. The principles stated in the case of Virsa Singh v. State

of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, are the broad guidelines for the

courts to exercise their judicial discretion while considering the

cases to determine as to which particular clause of Section 300

of the IPC they fall in. This Court has time and again deliberated

upon the crucial question of distinction between Sections 299

and 300 of the IPC, i.e. ‘culpable homicide’ and ‘murder’

respectively. In Phulia Tudu v. State of Bihar, (2007) 14 SCC

588, this Court noticed that confusion may arise if the courts

would lose sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms

used by the legislature in these sections. This Court observed

that the safest way of approach to the interpretation and

application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the

keywords used in the various clauses of these sections.

37. This Court in Phulia Tudu (supra) has observed that the

academic distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide

not amounting to murder’ has always vexed the courts. The

confusion is caused if courts losing sight of the true scope and

meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections,

allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The

safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of

these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used

in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC. The

following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the

points of distinction between the two offences:-

Section 299 Section 300

A person

commits

culpable

homicide if the

act by which

the death is

caused is done-

Subject to certain exceptions

culpable homicide is murder if the

act by which the death is caused

is done-

INTENTION

(a) with the

intention of

causing death;

(b) with the

intention of

causing such

bodily injury

as is likely to

cause death; or

(1) with the intention of causing

death; or

(2) 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

(3) 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

KNOWLEDGE

knowledge that

the act is likely

to cause death

(4) with the knowledge that the act

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 is

mentioned above.

38. Clause (b) of Section 299 of the IPC corresponds with

clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. The distinguishing

feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the

knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular

victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that

the internal harm caused to him 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 normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that the

‘intention to cause death’ is not an essential requirement of

clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury

coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such

injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to

bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This clause (2)

is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300 of the

IPC.

39. Clause (b) of Section 299 of the IPC does not postulate

any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of

cases falling under clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC can be

where the assailant causes death by a fist blow intentionally

given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver,

or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to

cause death of that particular person as a result; of the rupture

of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may

be. If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or

special frailty 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. In clause (3) of

Section 300 of the IPC, instead of the words “likely to cause

death” occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299

of the IPC, the words “sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature” have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between

a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The

distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in

miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause (b) of

Section 299 of the IPC and clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC

is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the

intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of

probability of death which determines whether a culpable

homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The

word ‘likely’ in clause (b) of Section 299 of the IPC conveys the

sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The

words “bodily injury…..sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death” mean that death will be the “most

probable” result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary

course of nature.

40. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that

the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death

ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to

cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The decision in

the case of Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC

1874, is an apt illustration of this point.

41. The scope of clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC has

been the subject matter of various decisions of this Court. The

decision in Virsa Singh (supra) has throughout been followed in

a number of cases by this Court. In all these cases the approach

has been to find out whether the ingredient namely the

intention to cause the particular injury was present or not? If

such an intention to cause that particular injury is made out

and if the injury is found to be sufficient in the ordinary course

of nature to cause death, then clause thirdly of Section 300 of

the IPC is attracted. Analysing clause thirdly and as to what the

prosecution must prove, it was held in Virsa Singh (supra) as

under:-

“15. First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a

bodily injury is present;

16. Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved;

These are purely objective investigations.

17. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an

intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is

to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or

that some other kind of injury was intended…

18. Once these three elements are proved to be

present, the enquiry proceeds further and,

19. Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the

type just described made up of the three elements set

out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely

objective and inferential and has nothing to do with

the intention of the offender.”

(Emphasis supplied)

It was further observed as under:-

“20. … If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must

face the consequences; and they can only escape if it

can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury

was accidental or otherwise unintentional.”

(Emphasis supplied)

42. Thus, it is clear that the ingredient of clause thirdly is not

the intention to cause death but on the other hand the

ingredient to be proved is the intention to cause the particular

injury that was present. It is fallacious to contend that wherever

there is a single injury only a case of culpable homicide is made

out irrespective of other circumstances.

In Emperor v. Sardarkhan Jaridkhan, AIR 1916 Bom 191, it

was observed as under:-

“Where death is caused by a single blow, it is always

much more difficult to be absolutely certain what

degree of bodily injury the offender intended.”

(Emphasis supplied)

43. Commenting upon the aforesaid observation of the

Bombay High Court, Justice Bose, in Virsa Singh (supra), held

thus:-

“23. … With due respect to the learned Judge he has

linked up the intent required with the seriousness of

the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what

the section requires. The two matters are quite

separate and distinct, though the evidence about them

may sometimes overlap.”

44. As to how the intention is to be inferred even in a case of

single injury, Justice Bose further held as under:-

“23. … The question is not whether the prisoner

intended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but

whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to

be present. If he can show that he did not, or if the

totality of the circumstances justify such an inference,

then, of course, the intent that the section requires is not

proved. But if there is nothing beyond the injury and the

fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only possible

inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whether he

knew of its seriousness, or intended serious

consequences is neither here nor there. The question, so

far as the intention is concerned, is not whether he

intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular

degree of seriousness, but whether he intended to inflict

the injury in question; and once the existence of the

injury is proved the intention to cause it will be

presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances

warrant an opposite conclusion. But whether the

intention is there or not is one of fact and not one of law.

Whether the wound is serious or otherwise, and if

serious, how serious, is a totally separate and distinct

question and has nothing to do with the question

whether the prisoner intended to inflict the injury in

question.

24. It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be

linked up with the seriousness of the injury. For example,

if it can be proved, or if the totality of the circumstances

justify an inference, that the prisoner only intended a

superficial scratch and that by accident his victim

stumbled and fell on the sword or spear that was used,

then of course the offence is not murder. But that is not

because the prisoner did not intend the injury that he

intended to inflict to be as serious as it turned out to be

but because he did not intend to inflict the injury in

question at all. His intention in such a case would be to

inflict a totally different injury. The difference is not one of

law but one of fact. …”

(Emphasis supplied)

45. This question was again considered in Jagrup

Singh v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 616, by a Bench of

this Court consisting of Justice D.A. Desai and Justice A.P.

Sen and following the ratio laid down in Virsa Singh (supra)

it was held as under:-

“6. There is no justification for the assertion that the

giving of a solitary blow on a vital part of the body

resulting the death must always necessarily reduce

the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to

murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of the

Code. If a man deliberately strikes another on the

head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod or even a

lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull, he must,

in the absence of any circumstances negativing the

presumption, be deemed to have intended to cause the

death of the victim or such bodily injury as is

sufficient to cause death. The whole thing depends

upon the intention to cause death, and the case may

be covered by either clause Istly or clause 3rdly. The

nature of intention must be gathered from the kind of

weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of

force employed and the circumstances attendant upon

the death.”

The aforesaid decision of this Court in Jagrup Singh (supra)

has been strongly relied upon by the learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellant.

46. However, the learned senior counsel did not seek to rely

on the observations made in para 6 referred to above in the

case of Jagrup Singh (supra). The learned senior counsel

relied on the observations which we shall refer to hereinafter,

but after giving some factual background in the case of

Jagrup Singh (supra). On the fateful evening, the marriage

of one Tej Kaur was performed. Shortly thereafter, the

appellant Jagrup Singh armed with a gandhala, his brothers

Billaur Singh armed with a gandasa and Jarmail Singh and

Waryam Singh armed with lathies emerged suddenly and

made a joint assault on the deceased Chanan Singh and the

three eyewitnesses, Gurdev Singh, PW 10, Sukhdev Singh,

PW 11 and Makhan Singh, PW 12. The deceased along with

the three eyewitnesses was rushed to the Rural Dispensary,

Rori where they were examined at 6 pm by Dr. Bishnoi, PW 3,

who found that the deceased had a lacerated wound 9 cm ×

11/2 cm bone deep on the right parietal region, 9 cm away

from the tip of right pinna; margins of wound were red,

irregular and were bleeding on touch; direction of wound was

anterior-posterior. The deceased succumbed to the injuries.

The Doctor who performed an autopsy on the dead body of

the deceased deposed before the Trial Court that the death of

the deceased was due to cerebral compression as a result of

the head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death. In the background of this case, this

Court held:-

“14. … In our judgment, the High Court having held

that it was more probable that the appellant Jagrup

Singh had also attended the marriage as the

collateral, but something happened on the spur of the

moment which resulted in the infliction of the injury by

Jagrup Singh on the person of the deceased Chanan

Singh which resulted in his death, manifestly erred in

applying Clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the Code.

On the finding that the appellant when he struck the

deceased with the blunt side of the gandhala in the

heat of the moment, without pre-meditation and in a

sudden fight, the case was covered by Exception 4 to

Section 300. It is not suggested that the appellant

had taken undue advantage of the situation or had

acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Thus, all the

requirements of Exception 4 are clearly met. That

being so, the conviction of the appellant Jagrup Singh,

under Section 302 of the Code cannot be sustained.

15. The result, therefore, is that the conviction of the

appellant under Section 302 is altered to one under

Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. For the

altered conviction, the appellant is sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.”

(Emphasis supplied)

We have noticed something in the aforesaid observations

made by this Court which, in our opinion, creates some

confusion. We have come across such observations in many

other decisions of this Court over and above the case of Jagrup

Singh (supra). What we are trying to highlight is that in

Jagrup Singh (supra), although this Court altered the

conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II, it took

shelter of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The question is,

was there any need for the Court to take recourse to Exception 4

to Section 300 of the IPC for the purpose of altering the

conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. We

say so because there is fine difference between the two parts of

Section 304 of the IPC. Under the first part, the crime of murder

is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of

one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the

second part, the crime of murder is never established at all.

Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the

offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the

IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the

exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.

47. In Jawahar Lal v. State of Punjab, (1983) 4 SCC 159,

also the accused hit the deceased with a knife blow in front of

left side of his chest and as per the autopsy report the injuries

were found sufficient in an ordinary course of nature to cause

death. This Court took a view that the accused could be

attributed the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury

which was likely to cause death. The relevant paras of the said

judgment is reproduced as under:

“17…….we should also not further dilate on this

point in view of the decision of this Court in Jagrup

Singh v. State of Haryana : 1981 Cri LJ 1136. In that

case after referring to the evidence, this Court held

that the appellant gave one blow on the head of the

deceased with the blunt side of the gandhala and

this injury proved fatal. The Court then proceeded to

examine as to the nature of the offence because the

appellant in the case was convicted for an offence

under Section 302. Undoubtedly, this Court said that

there is no justification for the assertion that the

giving of a solitary blow on a vital part of the body

resulting in death must always necessarily reduce

the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to

murder punishable under Section 304, Part II of the

Code. The Court then proceeded to lay down the

criteria for judging the nature of the offence. It may

be extracted;

The whole thing depends upon the intention to

cause death, and the case may be covered by either

clause Firstly or clause Thirdly. The nature of

intention must be gathered from the kind of weapon

used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force

employed and the circumstance attendant upon the

death.

18. We may point out that decision in Jagrup Singh's

Case 1981 Cri LJ 1136 was subsequently followed

in Randhir Singh @ Dhire v. State of Punjab Decided

on September 18, 1981 and in Kulwant Rai v. State

of Punjab Decided on August 7, 1981 (Criminal

Appeal No. 630 of 1981).

19. Having kept this criteria under view, we are of

the opinion that the offence committed by the

1st appellant would not be covered by clause Thirdly

of Para 3 of Section 300 and therefore, the conviction

under Section 302, I.P.C. cannot be sustained.

20. What then is the offence committed by the

1st appellant? Looking to the age of the 1st appellant

at the time of the occurrence, the nature of the

weapon used, the circumstances in which one blow

was inflicted, the time of the day when the

occurrence took place and the totality of other

circumstances, namely, the previous trivial disputes

between the parties, we are of the opinion that the

1st appellant could be attributed the knowledge that

he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to

cause death. Accordingly, the 1st appellant is shown

to have committed an offence under Section 304, Part

II of the Indian Penal Code and he must be convicted

for the same and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for five years maintaining the sentence

of fine.”

48. In Camilo Vaz v. State of Goa [(2000) 9 SCC 1 : 2000

SCC (Cri) 1128] the accused had hit the deceased with a danda

during a premeditated gang-fight, resulting in the death of the

victim. Both the trial court and the Bombay High Court

convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. This Court,

however, converted the conviction to one under Section 304 Part

II IPC and observed:- (SCC p. 9, para 14)

“14. … When a person hits another with a danda on

a vital part of the body with such a force that the

person hit meets his death, knowledge has to be

imputed to the accused. In that situation case will

fall in Part II of Section 304 IPC as in the present

case.”

(Emphasis supplied)

49. In Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Admin.), (1991) 2 SCC

32, this Court, after an exhaustive review of various decisions,

more particularly, the principles laid down in Virsa Singh's

case (supra), concluded as under:-

“18. In all these cases, injury by a single blow was

found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature

to cause death. The Supreme Court took into

consideration the circumstances such as sudden

quarrel, grappling etc. as mentioned above only to

assess the state of mind namely whether the accused

had the necessary intention to cause that particular

injury i.e. to say that he desired expressly that such

injury only should be the result. It is held in all these

cases that there was no such intention to cause that

particular injury as in those circumstances, the

accused could have been barely aware i.e. only had

knowledge of the consequences. These circumstances

under which the appellant happened to inflict the

injury it is felt or at least a doubt arose that all his

mental faculties could not have been roused as to form

an intention to achieve the particular result. We may

point out that we are not concerned with the intention

to cause death in which case it will be a murder

simplicitor unless exception is attracted. We are

concerned under clause 3rdly with the intention to

cause that particular injury which is a subjective

inquiry and when once such intention is established

and if the intended injury is found objectively to be

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death, clause 3rdly is attracted and it would be

murder, unless one of the exceptions to Section 300 is

attracted. If on the other hand this ingredient of

‘intention’ is not established or if a reasonable doubt

arises in this regard then only it would be reasonable

to infer that clause 3rdly is not attracted and that the

accused must be attributed knowledge that in

inflicting the injury he was likely to cause death in

which case it will be culpable homicide punishable

under Section 304 Part II IPC.”

(Emphasis supplied)

50. In the case of Rajwant Singh (supra), after referring to

the relevant clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, the following

observations have been made:-

“10. … The mental attitude is thus made of two

elements (a) causing an intentional injury and (b)

which injury the offender has the foresight to know

would cause death….

11. … For the application of clause three it must first

be established that the injury is caused, next it must

be established objectively what the nature of that

injury in the ordinary course of nature is. If the injury

is found to be sufficient to cause death, one test is

satisfied. Then it must be proved that there was an

intention to inflict that very Injury and not some other

injury and that it was not accidental or unintentional.

If this is also held against the offender the offence of

murder is established.” (Emphasis

supplied)

51. In the case of Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC

148, the two relevant Sections 299 and 300 respectively are

brilliantly analysed and the relevant observations are made at

page 151 in para 7. Before we refer to those observations, we

would refer to certain observations made earlier. They are as

under:-

“The offence of culpable homicide involves the doing of

an act (which term includes illegal omissions) (a) with

the intention of causing death, or (b) with the intention

of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause

death or (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to

cause death. If the death is caused in any of these

three circumstances, the offence of culpable homicide

is said to be committed……. Intention and knowledge

in the ingredients of the section postulate the existence

of a positive mental attitude and this mental condition

is the special mens rea necessary for the offence. The

guilty intention in the first two conditions contemplates

the intended death of the person harmed or the

intentional causing of an injury likely to cause his

death. The knowledge in the third condition

contemplates knowledge of the death of the person.

Sec. 300 tells us when the offence is murder and

when it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Sec. 300 begins by setting out the circumstances when

culpable homicide turns out into murder which is

punishable under sec. 302 and the exceptions in the

same section tell us when offence is not murder but

culpable homicide not amounting to murder

punishable under sec. 304. Murder is an aggravated

form of culpable homicide. The existence of one of four

conditions turns culpable homicide into murder while

the special exceptions reduce the offence of murder

again to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”

(Emphasis supplied)

52. We will now refer to the relevant observations made in

para 10 at page 151. They are as under:-

“The third clause views the matter from a general

stand-point. It speaks of an intention to cause bodily

injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death. The emphasis here is on the

sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death. The sufficiency is the high

probability of death in the ordinary way of nature and

when this exists and death ensues and the causing of

such injury is intended the offence is murder.

Sometimes the nature of the weapon used, sometimes

the part of the body on which the injury is caused,

and sometimes both are relevant. The determinant

factor is the intentional injury which must be sufficient

to cause death, that is to say, the probability of death

is not so high, the offence does not fall within murder

but within culpable homicide not amounting to murder

or something less. The illustration appended to the

clause 3rdly reads:

‘(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.’ The sufficiency of an intentional injury

to cause death in the ordinary way of nature is

the gist of the clause irrespective of an intention

to cause death. Here again, the exceptions may

bring down the offence to culpable homicide not

amounting to murder.” (Emphasis supplied)

53. This Court in Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of

U.P., (2007) 14 SCC 660, noticed that the academic

distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide not

amounting to murder’ had vividly been brought out by this

Court in State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4

SCC 382, where it was observed as under:-

“…that the safest way of approach to the

interpretation and application of Sections 299 and 300

of the Code is to keep in focus the key words used in

various clauses of the said sections. Minutely

comparing each of the clauses of sections 299 and

300 of the Code and the drawing support from the

decisions of the court in Virsa Singh v . State of

Punjab , (AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818)

and Rajwant Singh v . State of Kerala , (AIR 1966 SC

1874 : 1966 Cri LJ 1509) speaking for the court,

Justice RS Sarkaria, neatly brought out the points of

distinction between the two offences, which have been

time and again reiterated. Having done so, the court

said that wherever the Court is confronted with the

question whether the offence is murder or culpable

homicide not amounting to murder, on the facts of a

case, it would be convenient for it to approach the

problem in three stages. The question to be considered

at the first stage would be that the accused has done

an act by doing which he has caused the death of

another. Two, if such causal connection between the

act of the accused and the death, leads to the second

stage for considering whether that act of the accused

amounts to culpable homicide as defined in section

299. If the answer to this question is in the negative,

the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting

to murder, punishable under the First or Second part

of Section 304, depending respectively, on whether

this second or the third clause of Section 299 is

applicable. If this question is found in the positive but

the cases come within any of the exceptions

enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be

culpable homicide not amounting to murder,

punishable under the first part of Section 304 of the

Code. It was, however, clarified that these were only

broad guidelines to facilitate the task of the court and

not cast-iron imperative.” (Emphasis supplied)

54. In the case of Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1984

SC 759, the accused stood in front of the house of the deceased

and used filthy language against some persons who were

unconnected with the deceased. The deceased came out of his

house and told the accused that he should not use vulgar and

filthy language in front of ladies and asked him to go away. The

accused questioned the authority of the deceased to ask him to

leave the place. In the ensuing altercation, the accused gave one

blow with a knife which landed on the (right) chest of the

deceased which proved to be fatal. This Court came to the

conclusion that the accused could not be convicted under

Section 302, but was guilty under Section 304 Part II. The

circumstances which weighed with this Court were : (i) there

was no connection between the accused and the deceased and

the presence of the deceased at the time of the incident, was

wholly accidental; (ii) altercation with the deceased was on the

spur of the moment and the accused gave a single blow being

enraged by the deceased asking him to leave the place; (iii) the

requisite intention could not be attributed to the accused as

there was nothing to indicate that the accused intended the

blow to land on the right side of the chest which proved to be

fatal.

55. In Chamru, Son of Budhwa v. State of Madhya

Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 652, in somewhat similar circumstances,

where there was exchange of abuses between the two parties

both of whom were armed with lathis, they came to blows and

in the course of the fight that ensued, the accused struck

a lathi blow on the head of the deceased which caused a

fracture of the skull resulting in the death. In view of the fact

that the accused had given only one blow in the heat of the

moment, it was held that all that can be said was that he had

given the blow with the knowledge that it was likely to cause

death and, therefore, the offence fell under Section 304, Part II

of the IPC. In Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya

Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116, there was, as here, a sudden

quarrel leading to an exchange of abuses and in the heat of the

moment a solitary blow with a hockey-stick had been given on

the head. The Court held that the offence amounted to culpable

homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section

304, Part II.

56. In Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, (1981) 4 SCC 245,

the accused, without any prior enmity or premeditation, on a

short quarrel gave a single blow with a dagger which later

proved to be fatal. This Court observed that since there was no

premeditation, Part 3 of Section 300 of the IPC could not be

attracted because it cannot be said that the accused intended to

inflict that particular injury which was ultimately found to have

been inflicted. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the

conviction of the accused was altered from Section 302 to that

under Section 304 Part II IPC and the accused was sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

57. In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 342,

the accused on the spur of the moment inflicted a knife-blow on

the chest of the deceased. The injury proved to be fatal. The

doctor opined that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death. This Court observed that: (SCC

p. 344, para 8):-

“8. … The quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in

such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon

like a knife and landed a blow in the chest. In these

circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the

appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge

that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely

to cause death. …” (Emphasis supplied)

This Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section

302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced the accused to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

58. In Hem Raj v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1990 Supp SCC

291, the accused inflicted single stab injury landing on the

chest of the deceased. The occurrence admittedly had taken

place on the spur of the moment and in heat of passion upon a

sudden quarrel. According to the doctor the injury was sufficient

in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This Court

observed as under: (SCC p. 295, para 14)”-

“14. The question is whether the appellant could be

said to have caused that particular injury with the

intention of causing death of the deceased. As the

totality of the established facts and circumstances do

show that the occurrence had happened most

unexpectedly in a sudden quarrel and without

premeditation during the course of which the appellant

caused a solitary injury, he could not be imputed with

the intention to cause death of the deceased or with

the intention to cause that particular fatal injury; but

he could be imputed with the knowledge that he was

likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause

death. Because in the absence of any positive proof

that the appellant caused the death of the deceased

with the intention of causing death or intentionally

inflicted that particular injury which in the ordinary

course of nature was sufficient to cause death, neither

clause I nor clause III of Section 300 IPC will be

attracted.”

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court while setting aside the conviction under Section 302

convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II and sentenced

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

59. We may lastly refer to the decision of this Court

in Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444 :

(2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 500, wherein this Court enumerated some of

the circumstances relevant to finding out whether there was any

intention to cause death on the part of the accused. This Court

observed : (SCC pp. 457-58, para 29)

“29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the

pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as

that will decide whether the case falls under Section

302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or

insignificant matters — plucking of a fruit, straying of

cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or

even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations

and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual

motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may

be totally absent in such cases. There may be no

intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact,

there may not even be criminality. At the other end of

the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the

accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by

attempting to put forth a case that there was no

intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure

that the cases of murder punishable under Section

302, are not converted into offences punishable under

Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not

amounting to murder, are treated as murder

punishable under Section 302. 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 sudden quarrel or sudden fight or

free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by

chance or whether there was any premeditation; (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. The above list of

circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there

may be several other special circumstances with

reference to individual cases which may throw light on

the question of intention.”