Sec 300 IPC: The Gujarat High Court asserts that even a single injury leading to the death of the victim can constitute ‘murder’

Case: State Of Gujarat Versus Prakash @ Piddu Mithubhai Mulani & 1 Other(S)

Coram: Justices AS Supehia and MR Mengdey

Case No.: R/Criminal Appeal No. 527 Of 1996

Court Observation: “While explaining the fine distinction between the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC, which refers to the expression “likely to cause death and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature”, the Apex Court has held that even if a single injury is inflicted and if that particular injury is found objectively to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of clause Thirdly is attracted and it would be murder, unless one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC is attracted.”

“It is further held that where the prosecution proves that the accused had intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies,”

“Thus, there was a clear intention on the part of the accused to inflict blow of knife on the neck of the decease. The evidence does not in any manner suggests that there was a sudden quarrel or sudden fight and the provocation was not voluntary. The accused has miserably failed to establish that there was sudden and grave provocation and he was deprived of power of self-control, and he caused the death of the deceased while was still in such state of mind,”

“The injury definitely was inflicted in such a manner which would attract the provisions of Clauses secondly and thirdly to Section 300 of the IPC. The accused can be attributed with the knowledge that if in such circumstances in which the deceased was made helpless and the injuries inflicted on his vital part that would cut his veins of the neck, he would definitely succumb to death. The intention of causing such injuries on the vital part of the body can be gathered from the act of the accused no.1 as the physical movement of the deceased was totally restricted and confined and hence, the accused no.1 had all the opportunity to inflict the injury on the vital part i.e. on the neck of the deceased cutting of the vein,”

Previous Posts

Efficient judicial functioning is jeopardized when parties are permitted to backtrack from their commitments without providing any justifiable reasons, as emphasized by the Delhi High Court

J&K High Court stresses that Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be interpreted in line with the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21

Delhi High Court Orders Litigant Claiming Ownership of Territory Between Ganga and Yamuna from Agra to Gurugram to Pay ₹10,000 in Costs

Calcutta High Court states that arranging groups in the tender process with clear distinctions is acceptable; it shouldn’t be criticized just because it may not be convenient for all bidders

In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must independently prove the ‘Pendency of Official Favour,’ without relying on external support: AP High Court

Keywords

Sec 300 IPC, Gujarat High Court