SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 305

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, R.P.SETHI
Keshavlal – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Ingredients for Attracting Section 304 IPC

Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code punishes culpable homicide not amounting to murder, divided into Part I (intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death) and Part II (knowledge that the act is likely to cause death). The core ingredients, derived from the distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC) and murder (Section 300 IPC), require proof of the following general elements, with specific qualifiers for each part:

Common Ingredients for Section 304 IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder):

  1. Act or Omission by the Accused: The accused must have caused the death by an act or omission, or if death results from bodily injury, the accused caused such injury. (!) [1000067120004]
  2. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): The act must be done
  3. with intention to cause death, or
  4. with intention to cause bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death, or
  5. with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, or
  6. with knowledge that the act is likely to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. (!) [1000067120004]
  7. Causation: The act/omission or injury must directly cause the death. (!) [1000067120003]
  8. Absence of Murder Exception: The act qualifies as culpable homicide but does not amount to murder under Section 300 IPC, typically because it falls within one of the Exceptions to Section 300 (e.g., grave and sudden provocation, private defence, sudden fight without premeditation). This reduces it from murder (Section 302) to Section 304. (!) [1000067120004] (!) [1000067120005]

Specific for Section 304 Part I:

  • Intention to cause death, or intention to cause bodily injury known to be likely (in the ordinary course) to cause death.
  • Act done without premeditation, often in a sudden fight or heat of passion, but with the above intent/knowledge. (!) (!) (!) [1000067120004][1000067120005]

Specific for Section 304 Part II:

  • Knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous and likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death or lethal injury. [Implicit in distinction from Part I, as modified from 302 to 304 Part I] (!) (!)

Key Distinction from Section 302 (Murder): If the act fits Section 300 without exceptions (e.g., premeditated, with knowledge of lethality without Exception 4 benefits), it is murder. Section 304 applies when an Exception (like Exception 4: sudden fight in heat of passion, no undue advantage) reduces it. (!) [1000067120004]

These must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, often via eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and circumstances showing lack of premeditation. (!) (!) [1000067120003][1000067120004]


JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-Holding that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court on the basis of the findings given being totally erroneous and as a result of misreading the evidence, the High Court, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal, set aside the same and convicted the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The High Court found that there was no ground to disbelieve the testimony of five eye-witnesses and to ignore a number of independent circumstances which connected the accused with the commission of the crime.

2. Appearing for the appellant, Shri Y.P. Singh, learned Counsel (Amicus Curiae) submitted that as the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting the accused, was a probable view, the High Court should not have interfered with by convicting and sentencing the appellant. It is contended that there being various omissions, improvements and contradictions in the statement of the eye-witnesses, no reliance should have be






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top