CASE ANALYSIS ON MURDER under section 300 IPCpptx

Top 5 Leading Murder Cases

1. CASE ANALYSIS ON MURDER Prepared By:- Sumit Kumar 022201000003019 III Semester BBA LL.B(Hons.) Subject:- Law of Crimes(SLBBL-S3-P1) Submitted To:- Prof. Dr. Upma Gautam

2. Contents Introduction K.M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra Harjinder Singh vs NCT of Delhi Administration Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab Rewaram vs State of Madhya Pradesh State vs Sushil Sharma (Tandoor Murder Case)

3. Introduction Section 300 of IPC defines murder as to where death is caused by the act of the offender, the death caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury which is likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. A person who commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine in accordance with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. K.M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1962 SC 605) Equivalent Citations:- AIR 1962 SC 605 The judgment in K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra is a legal landmark, not only for its media prominence but for its profound impact on penal law interpretation. Renowned for its portrayal of Commander Nanavati and its connection with the public, it marked the end of jury trials in India due to evident drawbacks highlighted during the case. The Bombay High Court's dismissal of the jury's verdict underscored the need for legal reform. Beyond its media spectacle, the case delved into crucial legal aspects, particularly the exception under murder and the limitations of the jury trial system. Its enduring significance lies not just in its popularity but in the legal precedents it set and the systemic changes it prompted.

5. Facts The accused K.M Nanavati who is appellant in the present case was commandant of the Indian Naval ship. He married Sylvia in 1949 in the registry office at England. They had three children two boys and one girl. Because of the job of Nanavati the couple were living at different place after that they shifted to Bombay that is the same city where Ahuja who is the deceased in this case was carrying his automobile business and living with his sister. Due to the requirement of his job Nanavati had to go away from Bombay leaving his wife and children behind at home in Bombay. As most of her time she would leave alone and feel lonely Sylvia fell in love with Ahuja and developed illicit relationship with him. After that Nanavati drove his car to cinema and left the children and his wife there and then drove towards his ship from where he obtained revolver and six rounds by giving false excuse that he is carrying it for some other activity and then put that revolver in a brown envelope and drove to Ahuja’s office where he got to know that Ahuja was not in his office he was in his house and then went straight towards the flat of Ahuja.

6. On reaching his flat he first confirmed from the servant whether his master was there or not. On finding that Ahuja was there in his bedroom he went there with brown envelope which had the revolver. Nanavati asked Ahuja whether he would marry Sylvia and look after his children then he replied that he does not marry every woman whom he sleeps with. The accused became enraged and put that revolver on the cabinet and threatened to thrash the deceased. When Ahuja was trying to grasp the envelope which was there on the cabinet a fight started between the two and during that scuffle by mistake two shots went off and hit Ahuja resulting in death. Initially the accused was not declared guilty under section 302 by jury with verdict 8:1. Then the case was referred to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay which declared the accused guilty under section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

7. Issues Whether Nanavati had pre planned for the murder or it was in heat of moment out of sudden and grave provocation? Whether the High Court had the power to set aside a jury’s decision.?

8. Judgment Hon’ble High Court :-The two-judge bench of the high court of Maharashtra held that Nanavati was liable under Section 302 of IPC as he had committed the pre-planned murder of Ahuja as the evidences like he first drop his wife and children at cinema hall and then went to ship to take revolver all these events show that it was pre planned murder not under grave and sudden provocation. Supreme court held that the facts of the case don't attract the provisions of Exception 1.to sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Court . And the accused is guilty for the murder under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment on accused passed by High Court is correct and also, held that there are no grounds for interference. And the Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court.

9. Harjinder Singh Alias Jinda VS NCT Of Delhi Administration Equivalent Citations:- 1968 AIR 867, 1968 SCR (2) 246 The case Harjinder Singh Alias Jinda versus Delhi Administration is about the appellant – Harjinder Singh Jinda and the Respondent – Delhi Administration. A person named Kewal Kumar has lost his life in a fight between his brother and the appellant. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1960 (Herein thereafter, referred to as IPC) for murder by the Sessions and the High court. So, he appeared in the Supreme Court. The issue in the case is about the appellant being convicted under the wrong section.

10. Facts A fight took place between Dalip Kumar and Harjinder Singh who was the appellant. It was near a water tap in front of a tin factory in Zamir Wali lane, Delhi. It took place on January 31, 1962 around 2:30 P.M. Harjinder was defeated or worsted in the fight and then he left the place. Before leaving he threatened Dalip Kumar that he would teach him a lesson. Harjinder Singh returned with his brother Amarjit Singh to Dalip Kumar’s house. After reaching there he shouted and told him to come out of the house. The household named Tejabai opened the door and asked Harjinder Singh and his brother Amarjit Singh to go away. Then either both of them or only the petitioner pulled Dalip Kumar out of the house. They pulled him into the lane and started beating him near a lamp post in the corner of Zamir Wali lane.

11. When they were beating him, Kewal Kumar (Deceased), the brother of Dalip Kumar came and tried to enter into the fight and rescue his brother. According to Amarjit Singh, who is the accused person held Kewal Kumar and his brother who is the appellant took out the knife and stabbed Kewal Kumar the deceased. One other version is given by the prosecution witness 5 (P.W.5) Mohd. Ali, it happened that the Appellant’s brother was who was holding Harjinder, asked him not to fight. After that Harjinder took out the knife from the pocket. He opened the knife with both the hands and gave a blow under the belly and the upper portion of the thigh of Kewal Kumar. When the appellant took out the knife and opened it, Dalip Kumar and his brother Kewal Kumar were struggling with him. He only stabbed Kewal Kumar once and he was in a bent condition. The direction of the wound was oblique. His sartorius muscle was also cut along with the femoral artery and vein. There was an outflow of blood in the muscles and around the upper end of the left thigh

12. Issues Whether the appellant has committed murder or not under Section 302 of IPC? Whether the prisoner had an intention to inflict serious injury or a trivial one?

13. Judgment The Judges stated it was not clear or it was not proved, that the appellant had the intention to inflict a particular injury on a particular place like the upper thigh. Therefore, Section 300 of IPC is not possible to apply for the act of the accused person. In Judge’s opinion, the situation justifies the inference that the accused did not intend to cause an injury on any particular place or a particular portion of the thigh. The evidence indicates that while the appellant was trying to assault Dalip Kumar and the deceased intervened, the appellant timing ‘himself one against two took out the knife and stabbed the deceased, it also indicates that the deceased at that stage was in a crouching position presumably to intervene and separate the two. It cannot, therefore, be said with any definiteness that the appellant aimed the blow that this particular part of the thigh knowing that it would cut the artery. It may be observed that the appellant had not used the knife While he was engaged in the fight with Dalip Kumar. It was only when he felt that the deceased also came up against him that he whipped out the knife. Hence in the circumstances of the case, they held that the appellant’s offence falls under Section 304 Part 1 .

14. Virsa Singh Vs State of Punjab Equivalent Citations:- 1958 AIR 465, 1958 SCR 1495 Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab case is about the section 300 IPC which deals with ‘Murder’ and section 302 IPC which deals with the punishment of murder. The appellant and five others were charged under sections 149 and 302 IPC.

15. Facts The appellant, Virsa Singh, was charged under Sections 302/149, 324/149, and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Khem Singh. The incident occurred on July 13, 1955, around 8 p.m., where Virsa Singh caused a fatal injury to Khem Singh with a spear thrust in the abdominal region. Khem Singh succumbed to the injury around 5 p.m. the following day. The trial court convicted Virsa Singh under Section 302, and this conviction was upheld by the High Court.

16. Issues The primary issue revolved around the nature of Virsa Singh intent at the time of causing the injury to Khem Singh. The appellant's argument centred on whether the prosecution had proved an intention to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, as required by Section 300 "thirdly" of the Indian Penal Code. The defence contended that there was no evidence or explanation about why the appellant inflicted such a severe injury, and therefore, the requisite intention was not proven.

17. Medical Report The inflamed injury was a perforated wound 2 times transverse to the left side of the abdominal wall of the lower part of the iliac region which is just above the inguinal canal. Three intestinal coils were also coming out of the wound which was inflicted. The doctor who examined the body said that the injury is the cause of death in the normal course of nature. The incident took place around 5 PM on 13 July 1955. Khem Singh died the following day at around 8 PM.

18. Judgments The Sessions judge concluded the accused was having the intention to cause grievous hurt. Therefore, section 300(3) is to be applied here, and the accused was convicted under section 302 of IPC, 1860 . Further, the High Court interrupted that section 300(3) of IPC was not applicable because the injury that was sufficient in the cause of death was not so proved. But later on, the High Court accepted it as a fact after the Post Mortem report of the deceased. In the end, The Honourable Supreme Court, by observing all facts, concluded that the accused had the intention to cause death that he used so much force that it penetrated the bowels and the three intestine coils came out of the wound. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, and the accused person was held for a death sentence under section 302 of IPC.

19. Rewaram vs State of MP Equivalent Citations:- 1978 CriLJ 858 This case helps to understand the concept of section 300 and it also depicts the significance of postmortem report as an aggravating factor while deciding the criminal culpability by the court of law.

20. Facts In the case of Rewaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant, Rewaram, appealed his conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Gyanwatibai. The incident occurred on the intervening night of May 13th and 14th, 1972. The prosecution's case was that Rewaram was found with a knife, standing close to his wife, who was lying in a pool of blood in their residence. Gyanwatibai, after sustaining multiple incised wounds, later succumbed to her injuries. Three witnesses, including Bhurkan Bai (P.W. 1), Nathulal (P.W. 3), and Dhan Singh (P.W. 4), testified that they heard cries from Gyanwatibai and her children that night. Upon reaching the appellant's house, they found the outer door locked. After forcibly entering, they discovered Gyanwatibai in a critical condition, and Rewaram was holding a knife. Gyanwatibai accused Rewaram of the attack in the First Information Report (FIR) and later made a dying declaration.

21. Issues The primary issue in the appeal was whether the injuries inflicted on Gyanwatibai were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause her death, thereby warranting a conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code . Rewaram's defence contended that Gyanwatibai's death was not a direct result of the injuries but was due to hyperpyrexia caused by atmospheric temperature and her weakened state.

22. Judgment Dr. Rajput identified 14 incised wounds on Gyanwatibai, with injury no. 1 alone deemed sufficient to cause death. Dr. Mahajan, who performed the operation and post-mortem examination, opined that injury no. 5 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Crucially, Dr. Mahajan attributed Gyanwatibai's debilitated condition to the multiple injuries, the subsequent operation, and post-operative starvation. The defence argued that hyperpyrexia was an independent cause of death. Still, the court reasoned that hyperpyrexia was a direct consequence of the injuries, as the medical treatment, operation, and postoperative starvation were necessitated by the injuries sustained. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming Rewaram's conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The judgment clarified that the appellant's act of causing injuries leading to death fell within the scope of murder, as the injuries were not only individually but also collectively fatal in the ordinary course of nature.

23. State vs Sushil Sharma(Tandoor Murder Case) Equivalent Citations:- 2007 CriLJ 4008 Facts:- The brief facts of the case are, the accused Sushil Sharma was the former president of the Delhi Youth Congress and Naina Sahni was the former General Secretary of the Delhi Youth Congress, girls wing and both of them were said to work with the Delhi Youth Congress. The accused Sushil Sharma in the year 1992, bought a flat in Mandir Marg and the deceased used to visit the flat occasionally and is said to have married the accused Sushil Sharma in the flat “in their own way”. The marriage of the deceased and the accused was considered to be a secret marriage and it was hidden from the Public. After their marriage, the deceased lived in the flat with Sushil Sharma. Sushil Sharma was a political person who wanted to keep their marriage secret but Naina Sahni hadn’t accepted it. He also suspected his wife’s character and thereby restricted her freedom. However, Naina Sahni was trying to leave Sushil Sharma and move to Australia with the help of a colleague Matloob Karim . After 3 years of increased tensions between the couple, on 2nd July 1995, when Sushil Sharma reached his flat in Mandir Marg, he found his wife to be in deep conversation with someone on the phone.

24. S ushil Sharma who always suspected his wife redialled the number from her phone and found that it was Matloob Karim. Sharma, being highly shocked, took out his revolver and shot Naina three times. Naina had died on the spot. After the murder was committed, the accused Sushil Sharma carried the body in his Maruti Car to his restaurant named Bagia Bar-be-que. The body was chopped into pieces and the accused with the help of co-accused Keshav Kumar, a restaurant employee, dumped it into the tandoor. The body of the deceased being burnt in the tandoor gave out a huge amount of fire and smoke from the restaurant which came to the attention of two police constables who then informed the control room (100). The officers went to check the incident in the restaurant and found that there was a corpse of a woman with the intestines falling out and one of the limbs burnt. The police found bloodstains on Keshav Kumar’s clothes which were later seized. However, the first accused Sushil Sharma fled from the crime scene and went to various cities and finally surrendered in Bangalore on 10th July 1995.

25. Issues Whether the chain of circumstance was complete because the case was mainly decided on circumstantial evidence and if the evidence shows clearly the guilt of the accused? Whether the decision is given by the Supreme Court in giving the death sentence to life imprisonment is valid or not? Note:- The first case in which DNA Forensics was involved .

26. Judgment The Delhi High Court admitted an appeal filed by Sushil Sharma, challenging his conviction and death sentence by the trial court. However, the High Court rejected these assertions and upheld the verdict of the trial court in this case. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, while reaching the conclusion that the accused were indeed liable to be convicted for committing the heinous crime of murder and brutally disposing of the body of the accused, said that the action of Sharma was the result of a strained individual relationship and not an offence against society. Thus, the Supreme Court commuted capital punishment to life imprisonment, while also taking into account certain mitigating factors like the accused previous criminal record and the age of the accused.

27. The Supreme Court also stated that the appellant in the case did not have any criminal background and was the only son to his parents, thus it’ll be very unfair to give the death penalty. The Supreme Court also stated that the medical evidence of the prosecution was not enough to prove that the deceased body was cut into pieces because according to the second post-mortem report the body was not clear cut. Also, there were no weapons found to show that the body was chopped. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the death sentence of the appellant is converted to a life sentence. This life sentence was subject to the statutory powers of remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161. The Hon’ble court states, “Undoubtedly the offence is brutal, but the brutality alone would not justify the death sentence in this case”. It is clear that the appellant loved his wife and the murder happened only because of the fit of rage due to the suspicions on the wife’s fidelity.

28. THANK YOU