'Guilty Intention' vs 'Guilty Knowledge' : Supreme Court Explains Fine Distinction Between Two Parts Of Section 304 IPC

In a judgment delivered yesterday, the Supreme Court explained the fine difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.The bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed 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. 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, the court added.In this case, the Trial Court had convicted the accused for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction by dismissing his appeal. Before the Apex Court, the appellant-accused contended that the conviction deserves to be altered from Section 304 Part I of the IPC to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. It was contended that the case does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC as all that can be attributed to the appellant is ‘knowledge’ and ‘not intention’.The judgment discusses the the fine distinction between the terms ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ , Section 299 IPC and Section 300 IPC. The bench summarized as follows:(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)...

'Guilty Intention' vs 'Guilty Knowledge' : Supreme Court Explains Fine Distinction Between Two Parts Of Section 304 IPC

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Guilty Intention' vs 'Guilty Knowledge' : Supreme Court Explains Fine Distinction Between Two Parts Of Section 304 IPC

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers