LexSHRI HARENDRA NATH BORAH versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHRl HARENDRA NATH BORAH A v. STATE OF ASSAM JANUARY 24, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sections 299 & JOO-Distinction between 'murder' and culpable homicide not amounting to 'murder '-Held, in the scheme of /PC culpable C homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie-All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-virsa- 'Culpable homicide' sans special characteristics of murder is 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'- In the facts, conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part /. Sections 299(b) & 300(2)-Distinction-Held, the 'intention to cause death' is not an essential requirement of Section 300(2)-/ntention of causing bodily injury coupled with offender's knowledge of the likehood of such injury causing death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of Section 300(2)-Section 299(b) does not postulate any knowledge on the part of the offender. Sections 299(b) & 300(3)-Distinction-Held, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient D E in the ordinary course of nature to cause death-Difference is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury- F For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death-Section 300(3) is applicable if there is intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient to cause death. Sections 299(c) & 300(4)-Distinction-Held, Sections 299(c) & G 300(4) both require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death-Section 300(4) is applicable where knowledge of offender as to probability of death approximates to a practical certainty. Prosecution alleged that truck driver-F was assaulted by appellant- H 1211 y 1212 SUPREl\1E COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R. \- A police personnel at 11 p.m. as a result of which F became senseless and the appellant left him on the road and returned to the police station, F was brought to hospital for treatment and was referred to another hospital and on way to the hospital his condition became serious and he died. Trial Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 Indian B Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life which was also upheld by the High Court in appeal. Hence this appeal by the accused police personnel. .. ( Partly allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD : 1. The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to be applied. In the scheme of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not D amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 IPC as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. Thus is punishable under the E first part of Section 304 IPC. 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 IPC. [Para 7] [1216-E-GJ F 2. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. 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 G 299 and 300 IPC. [Para 8) [1216-H, 1217-A] 3.1. Clause ~b) of Section 299 IPC corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300 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 H the internal harm caused to him is likely to.be fatal, notwithstanding the SHR! HARENDRA NA TH BORAH v. STA TE 1213 fact that such harm woul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.