289. Negligent conduct with respect to animal.- Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Punishment- Imprisonment for 6 months or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both -Cognizable –Bailable-Triable by Magistrate - Non- compoundable.
290. Punishment for public nuisance in case not otherwise provided for.- Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
Punishment- Fine of 200 rupees-Non-cognizable –Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate - Non- compoundable
291. Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue.- Whoever or continues a public nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Punishment- Simple imprisonment for 6 months or fine, or both -Cognizable –Bailable-Triable by Magistrate - Non- compoundable
1[292. Sale ,etc., or obscene books, etc.- 2[(1)] For the purpose of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing drawing, panting , representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is , if taken as a whole , such as to ten to deprave and corrupt person , who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it].
3[(2)] Whoever-
(a) sells, less to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purpose of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes , produces or has in his possession any obscene book,pamphlet, paper , drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or
(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purpose aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely , having regard to all relevant circumstance, to read, see or hear the matter contained or emboldened in it].
(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are for any of the purposes aforesaid, made , produced, purched , kept, imported, exported, conveyed, , publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or
(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or
offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section,
shall be punished 4[on first conviction with imprisonment or either description for a term
which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and ,in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees].
1[Exception . – This section does not extend to-
(a) any book, pamphlet, paper, writing , drawing, painting, representation or figure-
the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing , drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, act of learning or other objects of general concern, or
(ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes;
(b) any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in-
any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958), or
.
(ii) any temple , or an any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose.]]
Punishment- On first conviction, with imprisonment for 2 years,and with fine of 2,000 rupees, and in the event of second of subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for five years and with fine of 5,000 rupees -Cognizable –Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate - Non- compoundable.
STATEMENT
AMENDEMNTS
State of
Orissa:
Same as in Tamil Nadu[Vide Orissa Act No. 13 of 1962].
State of Tamil Nadu:
In section 292 the words “shall be punishable with imprisonment of either
___________________________________________________________
1. Subs. by Act 36 of 1969, sec.2, for Exception.
description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both “substitute the following namely:-
“ shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with both:
Provided that for a second or any subsequent offence under this section, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less then six months and not more than two years and with fine”.
[Vide T.N. Act No. 25 of 1960].
State of
Orissa:
Section 292A
Same as in Tamil Nadu [Vide Orissa Act No. 13 of 1962]
State of Tamil Nadu:
Add after section 292 the following new section namely:-
292.A. Printin, etc., of grossly indecent or scurrilous matter or matter intended for blackmail.- Whoever.-
(a) print or causes to be printed in any newspaper, periodical or circular, or exhibits or causes to be exhibited , to public view or distributes or cause to be distributed or in any manner puts into circulation any picture or any printed or written document which is grossly indecent, or in scurrilous or intended for blackmail; or
(b) sells or lets for hire, or for purpose of sale or hire makes , produces or has in his possession any picture or any printed or written document which is grossly indecent or is scurrilous or intended for blackmail; or
(c) conveys any picture or any printed or written document which is grossly indecent or is scurrilous or intended for blackmail knowing or having reason to believe that such picture or document will be printed, sold, let for hire distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation; or
(d) takes part in, or receives profits from, any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such newspaper , periodical, circular, picture or other printed or written document is printed, exhibited, distributed, circulated, sold, let for hire, made, produced, kept, conveyed or purchased; or
(e) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any Act which is an offence under this section, or that any such newspaper , periodical , circular , picture or other printed or written document which is grossly indecent or is scurrilous or intended for blackmail , can be procured from or through any person; or
(f) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section *[shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with fine, or with both] :
Provided that for a second or any subsequent offence under this section , he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months *[and not more than two years].
Explanation I .- For the purposes of this section , the word scurrilous shall be deemed to include any matter which is likely to be injurious to morality or is calculated to injure any person:
Provided that it is not scurrilous to express in good faith anything whatever respecting the conduct of-
(i) a public servant in the discharge of his public functions or respecting or respecting his character so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further; or
(ii) any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further.
Explanation II.- In deciding whether any person has committed an offence under this section, the court shall have regard inter alia, to the following considerations-
(a) The general character of the person charged, and where relevant the nature of his business;
(b) the general character and dominant effect of the matter alleged to be grossly indecent or scurrilous or intended for blackmail;
(c) any evidence offered or called by or on behalf of the accused person as to his intention in committing any of the acts specified in this section.
[vide T.N.Act No. 25 of 1960].
*Subs, by T.N.Act No. 30 of 1984.
1[293. Sale, etc., of obscene objects to young person.- Whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any such do , shall be punished 2[on first conviction with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to there years and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees ,and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees].]
Punishment- On first conviction , with imprisonment for 3 years , and with fine of 2,000 rupees , and in the event of second of subsequent conniption, with imprisonment for 7 years, and with fine of 5,000 rupees-Cognizable –Bailable-Triable by Magistrate - Non- compoundable.
State of Orissa:
Same as in Tamil Nadu [Vide Orissa Act No. 13 of 1962]
State of Tamil Nadu:
In Section 293-
(a) for the words “any such obscene object as is referred to in the last preceding section” the words, figures and letter “ any such obscene object as is referred to in section 292-A shall be substituted;
(b) for the words “ which may extend to six months ‘ the words “which may extend to three years” shall be substituted;
(c) in the marginal note, after the words “obscene objects” the words “ any grossly indecent or scurrilous matter intended for blackmail shall be inserted”.
[vide T.N. Act No. 25 of 1960].
_______________________________________________________________
3[294. Obscene acts and songs.- Whoever, to the annoyance of others-
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months , or with fine, or with both.]
CLASSIFICATION OF OFENCE
Punishment-Imprisonment for 3 months or fine, or both -Cognizable –Bailable-Triable by Magistrate - Non- compoundable
4[294A. Keeping lottery office.- Whoever keeps any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery 5[not being 6[a State lottery] or lottery authorized by the 7[State]
Government] , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
And whoever publish any proposal to pay any sum, or to deliver any goods, or to do or forbear doing anything for the benefit of any person, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the drawing of any ticket, lot, number or figure in any such lottery , shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.]
3.
Subs.
by Act 3 of 1895,sec .3, for the
original section.
4.
Ins.
by Act 27 of 1870, sec.10.
5.
5.Subs.
by the A.O. 1937 for “not authorized by
Government”.
6.
Subs.by
Act 3 of 1951,sec. 3 and Sch., for” a
lottery organized by the Central Government
or the Government or a Part A State or a Part B State”.
7.
Subs.
by the A.O. 1950, for “ Provincial”.
8.
Government]
, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
STATEMENT AMENDMINTS
State of
Andhra Pradesh:
In Andhra Pradesh, section 294-A repealed.
[Vide Andhra Pradesh Act No. 16 of 1986, section 27].
State of Gujarat :
In Andhra Pradesh, section 294-A repealed.
[Vidde Andhra Pradesh Act No. 82of 1958].
State of
Karnataka:
In Karnataka area excepted Bellary District , section 294-A repealed.
[Vide Karnataka Act No. 27 of 1957].
State of
Maharashtra:
In Maharashtra ,section 294-A repealed.
[Vide Karnataka Act No. 82 of 1958].
State of
Uttar Pradesh:
` In Uttar Pradesh ,section 294-A repealed.
[Vide Karnataka Act 24 of 1995, section 11].
Para I. Punishment-Imprisonment for 6 months or fine, or both-Non -cognizable –Bailable-Triable by Magistrate - Non- compoundable
Para II. Punishment-Fine 1,000 rupees-Non -Cognizable –Bailable-Triable by Magistrate - Non- compoundable
OF OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION
295. Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class.- Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowing ledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years or fine, or both -Cognizable –Non-bailable-Triable by Magistrate - Non- compoundable.
1[295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2[citizens of India], 3[ by words, either spoken or written, or by sings or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.]
Punishment-Imprisonment for 1 years or fine, or both -Cognizable –Non-bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class- Non- compoundable.
296. Disturbing religious assembly.- Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Punishment-Imprisonment for 1 years or fine, or both -Cognizable –Non-bailable-Triable by any Magistrate - Non- compoundable.
297. Trespassing on burial places, etc.- Whoever, with intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby,
_______________________________________________________________
1.
Ins.
by Act 25 of 1927, sec.2.
2.
Subs.
by the A.O. 1950, for “ His Majesty’s subjects”.
3.
Subs.
by Act 41 of 1961, sec.3, for certain words.
4.
Subs.
by Act 41 of 1961, sec.3, for” two years”.
Commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sculpture, or any place set apart from the performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains or the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies,
Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Punishment-Imprisonment for1 years, or fine, or both -Cognizable –Bailable-Triable by Magistrate - Non- compoundable.
298. Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person- Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any words or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places, any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFENCE
Punishment-Imprisonment for 1 years or fine, or both –Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate – Compounded by the person whose religious feelings are intended to be wounded.
State of Andhra Pradesh:
In Andhra Pradesh offence under section 298 is cognizable.
[Vide A.P.G.O. ms. No. 732,dated 5-12-1991].
OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY
229. Culpable homicide.- Whoever cause 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.
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed . A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B dies not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful acct, he was not guilty of culpable homicide , as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1.- a person who cause bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.- The causing of the death of child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
COMMENTS
(i) “Culpable homicide” is genus, and “ murder” is the specie. All “murder” is culpable homicide but not vice-versa; Narasingh Challan v. State of Orissa,(1997) 2 Crimes 78(Ori).
(ii) The assault for murder cannot be said to be sudden and without meditation as the deceased was not armed; State of Mahrashtra v. Krishana Murti Lazmipatti Naidu, Air 1981 SC 617: (1981) SCC Cr R 398 (1981) Cr LJ 9: (1981) SSC(Cr)354.
300. Murder.- Excepted in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, of 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 done with intention of causing such bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly.- If he 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 dearth, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut to club- wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death..
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a corows of persons and kill one of them. A is guilty of murder, althouth he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any Particular individual.
Exception 1.- When culpable homicide is not murder.- Culpable homicide is not murder if he offender, whilst deprived of the power o self- control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death or the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First.- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.- That the provocation is not given by any thing done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant.
Thirdly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explication.- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z’s child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given y the child , and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to likely to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z, Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he dose not believe a word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z .This is murder.
(e) A attempts to puss Z’s nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B, B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.
Exception 2.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the poser given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation , and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such derence.
Illustration
Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A.A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.
Exception 3.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharged of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditating a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner .
Exception .- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception. 5- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration
A, by instigation ,voluntarily cause, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here,on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.
COMMENTS
(i) In case where there was no intention to cause death, the act was done with knowledge that same is likely to cause death, the guilt of offence comes under part Iiof sec. 304; S.D.Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) CrLJ 330 (SC)
(ii) In absence of intention to cause particular injury likely to cause death conviction comes under part II of sec. 304; Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 55 (1981 Cr LR (SC) 543: (1981) 4 SCC 484.
(iii) When there was no evidence as to how death came about , evidence relating to charge of murder was held to be insufficient and unaxxeptable; Kedar Nath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 989 (SC).
(iv) When in case of murder complaint filed after month of incident and with nesses, statement recorded after 9 months, conviction cannot be founded; State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh, AIR 1981SC 1917:1981) Cr LJ1683: (1981) Cr JR (SC) 501: (1981) 4 SCC 2.
(v) Circumstance that accused were in possession of buffaloes belonging to deceased cannot lead to hold accused guilty of murder; Joga Gola v. State of Gujarat, AIR 982 SC 1227; (1982) SCC (Cr) 141.
(vi) When accused had no intention to cause injury on non-vital part of body which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, illustration (c ) of section 300 is not applicable; Gokul Parashram Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1441;(1981) Cr LJ 1033.
(vii) The totality of the injuries caused to the victim clearly supports the finding of both the courts below that the accused/ appellants went on belabouring the dexeased till he died on the spot In the circumstances , the contention that the accused did not intend to cause the murder of the deceased cannot be upheld by the Supreme Court; Prabhu v. State of Madyha Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC).
(viii) Having regard to the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased it was not possible to uphold the contention that there was no intention to kill ; Prabhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC).
(ix) The establishment of the involvement of the accused on the incident and misgiving of a Barchhi blow to the grandson of the deceased when he tried to go to the rescue of his grand- father, is sufficient to convict the accused under section 300 read with section 34; Banta Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) Cr LJ 1342 (SC).
(x) It is fallacious to contend that when death is caused by a single blow clause thirdly is not attracted and, therefore, it would not amount to murder. The ingredient intention’ in that clause gives clue in a given case whether offence involved is murder or not; Jai Prakash v. The State (Delhi Administration ), (1991)1 Crimes 474 (SC).
(xi) The number and nature of injuries may furnish good evidence to consider whether the accused had exceeded the right to private defence; Patori Devi v. Amar Nath, (1988) Cr LJ 836; AIR 1988 SC 560.
(xii) Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict accused when possibility of deceased receiving fatal injury by fall cannot be ruled out; State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kmala,(1991) Cr LJ 602 (SC).
(xiii) In case of murder in which the conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and consistent with the guilt of the accused ; S.D Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC).
(xiv) Infliction of the injury on the vital part of the body with the agricultural instrument by the enraged accused in a sudden quarrel – Held. Accused did not cause the injury intentionally; Patel Rasikal Becharbhi v. State of Gurjarat, AIR 1992 SC 1150.
(xv) (1) The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused , placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self- control (2)In India, words and gestures may also , under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception, to Section 300.(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 3 Crimes 146 (Med).
(xvi) Mere sudden quarrel woud not entitle the accused to seek for Exception 4 to section 300; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v.State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Med).
(xvii) To invoke Exception 4 to section 300, four requirements must be satisfied, namely (i) it was sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner… The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence mast have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have been acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner . Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the , moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly; samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Madhya pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).
(xviii) Where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, it will not be correct to assume private defence for both sides. Such a case will be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Code; Januram v. State of Madhys Prasesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).
(xix) Where the extra judicial condession made by accused admitting the crime of throwing his three minor children also recovered form well, therefore accused liable for offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC; Narayana Swamyt v. Stateof Karnataka ,2000 Cr LJ 262 (Karn).
(xx) Where evidence of both eye witness reliable and well corroborated by medical and other evidence on record inspires confidence that accused had intention to kill deceased then conviction is liable to be sustained ; Rabba Ramanna Dora v. State of Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).
(xxi) Where the eye with nesses were close relations of accused and were natural with ness and their consistant evidence regarding assault by accused with knife to deceased , bother of accused which caused his death, corroborated by other with ness of incident, therefore guilt of accused proved beyond reasonable doubt; Suaukar Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).
(xxii) Where the ocular evidence is explicit and fully supported by medical evidence and evidence of other with ness who apprehend the accused after some hours of occurrence with blood stained weapon then absence of proof of motive will not render the entire prosecution case unbelievable, therefore , charge of murder against accused proved beyond all reasonable doubt; Ram Nath Novia v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 318 (Pat).
(xxiii) Plea of alibi in murder case, when most of the evidences prove presence of accused on spot of murder, can not be relied upon. It is on accused to prove that he was not present that too by reliable evidence only; Singha Magan Gamit v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cri LJ 2111 (Guj).
(xxiv) Pelting stones resulted into rob-fracture. Rupture of pleura is sufficient to cause death. External injury noted by doctors- appellants cannot put under clause 3rd or section 300. Guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Madan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1998 SCC (Cr) 1549.
(xxv) Chain of evidence must be complete with fully established circumstances not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. It should be of conclusive nature: Arvind v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1999 (4) SCC 4861: 1999 (3) JT 554.
(xxvi) Wrist watch was santched by accused of deceased . On request called to meet on specified spot. Hot words were exchange knife blow was given on chest to deceased also to the person who came to rescue him. It cannot be said fatal injuries were without predestination exception cannot be applied ; Mahesh Balmiki v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 1999 AIR (SC) 338:
(xxvii) Where the evidence of eye with ness regarding assault to deceased by accused persons was truthful , reliable and clearly corroborated by medical evidence and common intention of accused parsons to Commit murder of deceased also proved therefore conviction under section 300/34 us proper ; Ratan Devnath v. State of Tripura, 2000 Cr LJ 237 (Gau).
(xxix) Where the co accused also shard common intention of committing murder of deceased by exhorting accused to commit crime, then offence punishable under section 302r/ w section 34 IPC was also proved against him; Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 63 (All).
(xxx) Where evidence of eye withness neither woholly reliable nor wholly unreliable then it can not be inferred that both accused were individually or collectively were respondible for causing death of deceased while injury was grievous in nature , there conviction under section 302 althred to one under section 326 IPC; Shaik Subhani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 321 (AP).
(xxxi) Where no prejudice caused to accuded due to alteration of charge from under sections 302,392 I.P.C to section 396, Therefore trial not vitiated; K.M.Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka, 2000 Cr LJ 197 (Karn).