X has been suspecting his wife to have illicit intimacy with A. He followed her one day secretly to A's house having provided himself with a dagger. When saw them undressed, X suddenly pounced upon them and killed them then and there. For what offence X is liable to be convicted.

Question: X has been suspecting his wife to have illicit intimacy with A. He followed her one day secretly to A's house having provided himself with a dagger. When saw them undressed, X suddenly pounced upon them and killed them then and there. For what offence X is liable to be convicted. [D.J.S. 1990]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [X has been suspecting his wife to have illicit intimacy with A. He followed her one day secretly to A's house having provided himself with a dagger. When saw them undressed, X suddenly pounced upon them and killed them then and there. For what offence X is liable to be convicted. [D.J.S. 1990]

Answer

The question involved in the problem related to the applicability of clause thirdly of section 300, IPC which reads thus

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.

While analyzing the clause in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, the SC held that the prosecution must prove:

1. Firstly it must establish quite objectively that a bodily injury is present;
2. Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations;
3. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and

1. Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.

In Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration), IT 1991 (1) sc 288, the appellant was having illicit relations with the wife of the deceased and his visits to her house were resented and objected to. On the day of occurrence, the accused visited the house when the deceased was not there and he went there armed with a kirpan, When the deceased came and objected to his presence there was only altercation and exchange of hot words and not a fight, Thereupon, he took out a knife and stabbed the chest of the deceased.

The above circumstances would show that the accused intentionally inflicted that injury though it may not be a pre-meditated one. All the above circumstances would certainly indicate that such a state of mind namely that he aimed and inflicted that injury with a deadly weapon. Once the ingredient of 'intention' is established the offence would be murder as the intended injury is found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, an offence of murder is made out.

The first and foremost landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in which Exception 1 of Section 300 was discussed in detail is KM Nanavati v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605, the Supreme Court discussed the law relating to provocation. It observed that the test is such that whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class as that of the accused would have caused the death when placed in such a situation similar to that of the accused and would that reasonable man would have lost his self-control as the accused due to the provocation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

It was clearly laid down in this case that in India even words/gestures unaccompanied by an act can cause grave and sudden provocation to the accused. It further held that the mental background created by the prior act of the deceased might be taken into consideration for ascertaining that whether the subsequent act caused the grave and sudden provocation which prompted the accused to commit the offence. Another observation made by the court was that the fatal blow must be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion has cooled by a lapse of time. This would otherwise amount to giving the accused room for premeditation.

Thus, in view of the above-discussed cases, X is guilty of murder punishable under section 302.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions