It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Anand and Basant (henceforth referred to

as the Accuseds) are not guilty u/ s 302 of the IPC for charges against them of murdering Rohit
(henceforth referred to as the Deceased).

The offence of murder is covered under Section 300 of the IPC which states that,

“Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide1 is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--

Secondly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

Thirdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--

Fourthly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must,
in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

The first clause says that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused is done
with the intention of causing death. A question of intention is a question of fact. But in a case of
murder, where intention is one of the essential elements of a murder, it is always necessary that
there should be a definite finding as to whether the necessary guilty intention is or is not present,
and when it is reasonably doubtful upon the evidence of the prosecution whether this intention is
present, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt.2

Under clause (2) of the said section, there is first the intention of causing bodily harm and next
there is subjective knowledge that death will be the likely consequence of the intended injury.

1
Section 299: Culpable Homicide-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such
act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
2
Ghulam Hyder Inram Baksh v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1938 Sind 63.
Where the attack is made with fists and kicks merely, or even with lathis merely, one may not
readily infer that knowledge. No hard and fast rule can be laid down on the subject and each case
should be governed by its own facts.3

In order to bring the case within para III of section 300 of IPC, it must be proved that there was
an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was
sufficient to cause death.4

Merely because the blow landed on a particular spot on the body divorced from the
circumstances in which the blow was given, it would be hazardous to say that the accused
intended to cause that particular injury. In the instant case, the weapon was not at hand. The
accused did not posses one. Altercation took place between his father and the deceased and he
gave blow with a wooden stick. In these circumstances it would be difficult to say that the
accused intended to cause that particular injury even though the injury proved to be fatal and was
opined in the ordinary course of nature to be sufficient to cause death.5

In case of wounds with blunt instruments, such as, a stick, the intention is not so clear. The effect
of a severe blow upon one man will be very different from what it will be upon another and it
does not follow, when the victim dies, that it was intended to inflict such injury as is sufficient to
cause death.6

Clause (4) of section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the
probability of death of a person or persons in general being caused from his imminently
dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender
must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing the death or such injury as aforesaid.

Dealing a blow with a lathi even though on vital part like the head does not necessarily establish
that the accused intended to cause death.7

3
Ghurey v. Rex. A.I.R. 1949 All. 342.
4
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 Cr.L..J 1946.
5
Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1552.
6
On Shwe Kalaw v. Emperor, I.L.R. 1 Rang. 436.
7
Ranjit Singh v. State, 1965 P.L.R. 1175.
The charge of murder is fallacious in the instant case, as the basic element of Mens Rea is absent.
It is a fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that a person may not be convicted of a
crime unless the prosecution proves this element beyond a reasonable doubt.8 In the instant case,
there is no mala fide intention on the part of the accused that could possibly lead her to commit
such a serious crime.

The blow made by the accused on the deceased was neither premeditated nor calculated but was
made under grave provocation as the deceased unnecessarily passed sarcastic comments towards
them.

Thus, it cannot be said that the accused had any intention of causing the death of the deceased
when they committed the act in question nor could they be attributed with knowledge that such
act was likely to cause his death.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court, that the accused is not liable for
murder under section 300 read with section 302 of the IPC.

8
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563.