1

Aligarh muslim university

Malappuram centre, kerala

Project report on the topic-

partial exemption from legal liability for
murder

In the course of Criminal Law -II as General class

test-I

Submitted To - Submitted By-

Mr. shahnawaz Ahmad. Vaibhav Teotia
Asst prof. Fac.. No.- 18ballb03
(Dept. of law). En. No.- Gj3957
 2

Contents -
S.No. Particulars Pg. No

1. Acknowledgement 3
About the Report 4
2.
3 Introduction 5
4 Offence of murder 5
5 Exceptions to Murder 5-9
6 Exception1: grave and sudden provocation 5
7 Exception2: exceeding the right of private defence 6
8 Exception 3: public servant exceeding the right 7
9 Exception 4: sudden fight
7
10 Exception5: consent
11 Liability for the offence of murder falling under the grounds 8
of exceptions 9
12 Recent case laws related to exceptions of murder 9-10
13 Conclusion 11
14 Bibliography 12
 3

Acknowledgement
First of all ,i would like to express my gratitude to
almighty to enabling me to complete this report on
this topic“partial exemption from legal
liability for murder ”

Then thanks to academic supervisor Mr.

shahnawaz Ahmad (assistant
professor ,Department of law, Aligarh Muslim
University). He gave me certain guidance how to
write and research. He also helps me a lot to
understand the rules of footnoting.

Last, but not least I would like to thank my family

and friends who helped me while making this
report by providing assistance.
 4

1.Introduction-

This report makes a brief analysis of the possibility of converting a case of murder into
culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the legal framework provided by Indian
Penal Code. Such conversion happens when a case of murder falls under any of the five
exceptions provided to murder by section 300 IPC. The report thus examines the grounds of
exceptions provided to murder under section 300 of IPC along with relevant Indian Legal
provisions and selected cases.

One of the most heinous crimes against human body dealt with under Indian Penal Code is
“Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder” under section 300. An offence of murder is made
punishable under section 302 of the Penal code with the punishment of either life
imprisonment or death sentence along with fine.

However, it is important to note that “every murder is culpable homicide but every culpable
homicide is not murder” as “culpable homicide is genus and murder is its specie”. Hence all
cases of culpable homicide need not amount to murder and such cases are dealt with under
section 299 and punishable under section 304 of Indian Penal Code. At the same time,
culpable homicide amounting to murder if falls under any of the five exceptional grounds as
provided under section 300, Indian Penal Code.

2. Exceptions to Murder:

As stated earlier, the offence of murder is subject certain exceptions. These grounds of
exceptions are the ones which makes an offence of murder into an offence of culpable
homicide not amounting murder. These five grounds of exceptions to Murder as provided
under section 300 of INDIAN PENAL CODE makes an accused eligible to get partial
exemption from his liability. Under such partial exemption, his liability will be reduced from
murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. That is, an offence which should
actually be punished under section 302 gets reduced to an offence punishable under section
304 with lesser punishment in comparison to an actual offence of murder.

The following is the explanation of each ground of exceptions:

2.1. First Exception: sudden and grave provocation

According to the first ground of exception: “Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation,
causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any
other person by mistake or accident”
 5

Under this ground of exception, an offence of murder if committed by an accused though

with the requisite mens rea becomes an offence of “culpable homicide not amounting to
murder” if he commits such offence under Provocation.

According to Goddard C.J1,“Provocation is some act, or series of acts done by the dead man
to the accused which would cause in any reasonable person ..... a sudden and temporary loss
of self-control, making him for the moment not master of his mind....”

Provocation in order to be considered as a ground of exception for an offence of murder must

satisfy certain conditional requirements, namely:

i.Such provocation must be grave and sudden

ii. Due to it, the accused loses his power of self-control,

iii. That the offence of murder was committed by the accused before he could cool down

Further, the ground of provocation is itself subject to the limitations set by further
statutory explanation to the section, according to which:

1. That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an

excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

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

3. That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right to
private defence.

It is important to note that an act for revenge cannot be considered as an act under
provocation as such acts are generally committed after due thought with desire to take such
vengeance, which by itself negates sudden temporary loss of self-control, which in fact is the
essence of the defence of provocation. Hence, as was rightly observed by the Supreme Court
in Nanavati’s case2 “circumstances which induce a desire for revenge, or a sudden passion of
anger, are not enough. Indeed, circumstances which induce a desire for revenge are
inconsistent with provocation, since the conscious formulation of a desire for revenge means
that the person has had time to think, to reflect, and that would negative a sudden temporary
loss of self-control which is of the essence of provocation. [In] Provocation ........, there are
two things, in considering it, to which the law attaches great importance. The first of them is,

1 R.v. Duffy (1949 – 1 ALL ER 932, also referred and quoted in K.M. Nanavathi v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)
2 K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)
 6

whether there was what is sometimes called time for cooling, that is, for passion to cool and
for reason to regain dominion over the mind................Secondly in considering whether
provocation has or has not been made out, you must consider the retaliation in provocation-
that is to say, whether the mode of resentment bears some proper and reasonable relationship
to the sort of provocation that has been given."

Provocation need not necessarily be confined to a physical or verbal attack but there could be
that small class of exceptional situation when the situational provocation gives rise to
commission of an offence3 Lapse of time, after provoking incident indicates that the offence
of murder was a well- planned one with sufficient time for thought of action and hence gets
disqualified from being an ground of exception. 4

2.2 Second Exception: exceeding right of private defence

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

Indian Penal Code makes ground of self defence subject to fulfilment of certain conditions as
a complete ground of defence / exemption from criminal liability. However when such
conditions are not fulfilled entirely but yet the offence of murder is committed while
exercising self-defence in good faith, the liability of the accused gets reduced under this
ground of exception to Murder, provided that such offence was committed without
premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than was necessary. It is thus
essential to prove that:

1. The act must be done in exercise of right of private defence of person or property.

2. The act must be done in good faith

3. The person doing the act must have exceeded his right given to him by law and have
thereby caused death

4. The act must have been done without premeditation and without any intention of
causing more harm than was necessary in private defence

3 Sulaiman K v. State of Karnataka 1998(1) Crimes 414

4 K.M. Nanavathi v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)
 7

Hence, when an accused while exercising his right to self-defence in good faith unfortunately
crosses the legal limits imposed by law of self-defence [chapter on general exceptions] but
falls under the scope of this exception, gets this partial defence instead of the complete
defence from criminal liability. Hence his offence of murder becomes culpable homicide
under this ground of exception.

2.3. Third Exception: public servant

According to the third ground of exception: “Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement
of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an
act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of
his duty as such public Servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is
caused.”,

This ground of exception can only be claimed by a public servant or a person aiding a public
servant while acting for the advancement of public justice. The defence protects them when
they exceed the powers conferred upon them by law and thereby cause death. In order to
come under this partial ground of defence, it is essential to prove that the act was done with
good faith and without any ill-will.

In Dakhi Singh v. State5 AIR 1955 ALL 379

where a suspected thief who was arrested by a police officer, while trying to escape by
jumping down from the train from its off-side was shot dead by the police officer [finding
himself not in a position to apprehend him] the court held that the accused as guilty of
Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder, as it was a case where the officer though
exceeded his legal powers did not have any ill will and committed the offence for the
advancement of public justice.

2.4. Fourth Exception: sudden fight

According to the fourth ground of exception:

“Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden

fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

An accused comes under this ground of exception when he commits murder:

5. PSA Pillai, Criminal Law,(lexis Nexis, 12th edition 2019)

 8

- during a sudden fight,

- without any premeditation,

- without taking any undue advantage of the circumstances and

- without acting in a cruel or unusual manner

The statutory explanation to the provision clarifies that: “It is immaterial in such cases which
party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.” Hence the requirements of this
exception are: (a) without premeditation in a sudden fight; (b) in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel; (c) the offender has not taken undue advantage; and (d) the offender has not
acted in a cruel or unusual manner and where these requirements are satisfied, culpable
homicide would not be murder.6

It is essential to note that a case which technically may not fall under the first ground of
exception, that is the defence of provocation, can still come under this ground of exception if
it is not a deliberate and malafide act of causing death. Similar to the defence of provocation,
this ground requires absence of premeditation or pre-arranged plans.

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 7
clarified this by holding: “The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a
sudden fight. The said Exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the First
Exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded
upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case
of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only
that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reasons and urges them to deeds which they
would not otherwise do.”

2.5. Fifth Exception: consent

According to the fifth ground of exception: “Culpable homicide is not murder when the
person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or
takes the risk of death with his own consent.”

Causing death with the consent of victim is generally considered as a lesser serious offence
than an offence of murder committed with any other ill-motive. Hence this ground of
exception reduces the liability of an accused who causes death of the victim, if such victim is
above eighteen years of age and has given consent. It is however important to prove that such

6 Mahesh Balmiki v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 319

7 (2006) 4 SCC 653
 9

consent was “unconditional and without any preservations” and was “express and undoubted
one”.

Consent of a person below the age of 18 years will not bring the cases under this partial
ground of exception. Cases of suicide pact, where one of the parties survives may come under
this ground of exception.

Liability for the offence of murder falling under the grounds of exceptions8-

the five grounds of exceptions to Murder as provided under section 300 of Indian Penal
Codemakes an accused eligible to get partial exemption from his liability. Under such partial
exemption, his liability will be reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.

Recent cases of murder which are converted into culpable

homicide not amounting to murder.

1. Suljina Dhan v. State of Assam, 2018 SCC 645

The appellant was alleged to have committed murder by attacking her husband with an axe.
Before the trial court, the appellant took a defence that her husband mistakenly fell on the axe
which resulted in his death. However, considering all the evidence available, the trial court
held her guilty.

The High Court perused the record and found that the fact-finding by the trial court did not
suffer from any infirmity. The appellant, who was alone with the deceased at the time of the
incident, was not able to discharge the burden of proving the fact exclusively within her
knowledge. Moreover, nature of injuries suffered by the deceased, as shown in the post-
mortem report, made the theory of the deceased falling on the axe, improbable. However, as
per appellant’s statement and also statements of prosecution witnesses, the deceased was a
drunkard who took up fights with the appellant. On the day of the incident also there was a
fight between the appellant wife and her husband. The Court held that the incident was an
outcome of the fight which gave grave and sudden provocation to the appellant that resulted
in commision of the act. Considering the facts, the Court held that the appellant was a victim
of circumstances and deserved the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300. Accordingly, her
conviction was altered from that under Section 302 to Section 304(II) IPC. Appeal was
disposed of accordingly.

8 Ratanlal and dhirajlala, Indian penal Code (pb), 36th edition

 10

2. Ananta Kamilya v. State of West Bengal.9

The facts of the case were that the accused came to the place of the incident, he did not carry
any lathi and/or any other weapon. It was only after some altercation and on the spur of the
moment, the accused gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased and the deceased
sustained the injury and there was a fracture on his head.

The only question which was posed for consideration of the Court was whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the case would fall under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 of
the IPC?

The Supreme Court held that it was true that the deceased died because of the injuries caused
by the accused, the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment and after some
altercation the accused took the lathi which was lying there and caused the injury on the head
of the deceased. There does not appear any intention on the part of the accused to cause the
very injury which ultimately led to the death of the deceased.

Supreme Court stated that, “The death resulted due to injury in quarrel. Therefore, the case
would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.”

3. Dharmaraj v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC

OnLine Bom 209
On the fateful day, one Yusuf (deceased) had a fight with his family. He came out of the house and
abused his younger brother who was standing at the window of the house. Appellant who was also
standing in his balcony, mistakenly thought that Yusuf was abusing him. He asked Yusuf whether he
will come up or appellant should come down. Yusuf replied as to what appellant will do coming
down. Thereafter, appellant with a knife rushed towards Yusuf climbing down 5 floors of the building
and inflicted severe knife blows which resulted in Yusuf’s death. Appellant was tried and convicted
by the trial court for Yusuf’s murder.

The High Court was not inclined to accept the appellant’s submission that his act would fall within the
purview of Exception 4 of Section 300. Observing that, “it takes two to make a fight”, the Court went
on to explain, ” To bring a case under Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, all the ingredients
mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted here that, the word “sudden fight” occurring in
Exception 4 is not defined in the Code. To attract Exception 4, the sudden fight must take place in the

9Appeal (Crl.), 1930 of 2019, Judgment Date: Jan 07, 2020

 11

heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The word “sudden” is a prefix to both the words “fight” and
“quarrel”. Therefore, if after a sudden quarrel, there is a time for the passion to cool down, the
resultant fight cannot be a sudden fight. Hence, in a case where there is a time to cool down after a
sudden quarrel, Exception 4 will not apply.”

Conclusion-
Hence a complete analysis of section 300, Indian Penal Code along with the grounds of
exceptions provided under Section 300 makes it clear that an offence of murder must
primarily be proved as the one which falls under any one of the four clauses of section 300. It
is then essential to raise one of the five grounds of exceptions provided under the provision in
order to seek partial grounds of exemption provided for murder, by bringing it back to the
status of “culpable homicide.”It is also possible to state that culpable homicide covered under
section 299 becomes murder covered under section 300 if it falls under one of the clauses of
section 300. Further murder under section 300 gets back the status of being an offence of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under section 304 of Indian Penal
Code.
 12

Bibliography
Books:-
1- psa pillai,criminal law (lexis
nexis,12th edition)
2- Ratanlal and Dhirajlal : Indian
penal code (PB), 36th edition
Websites:- referred for recent case laws.
1. Www.scconline.com
2. Www.latestlaw.com
3. Www.indianemployees.com