 Good afternoon, one and all. And it is always a pleasure. Once you connect with a person who has created his benchmarks within the legal arena and beyond that. Just like we have Beyond Law CLC to the effect that we take webinars beyond the law, same way amongst us today the resource persons Professor BT call a former chairman of the Delhi judicial Academy and he has been on a platform giving insights on the topics and his webinars on the labor law as well as on the IPC both have done well. Taking into consideration that his he's having immense knowledge and the way he explains the things they create well within our minds, a special space. And the topic, not only for the students of law, because, and even for the judicial exams, culpable homicide and murder has a different space. Similarly, a lawyer practicing may not be practicing on the, they as they say on the criminal field of jurisprudence, but still this murder and culpable homicides are the issues which keep on propping up between the lawyers at the public at large, even in the newspapers daily we read about a ban have been convicted for culpable homicide or murder. Keeping in view this fascination as to what would be the homicide as we all know homo means same and side means they are derived from the Latin word, and therefore the homicide word has been right. And what is what what could be the provocation and what are the circumstances, which creates from murder to a culpable homicide or vice versa where it's culpable homicide or it could be murder. Without taking much time, I would request Professor BT call a well known speaker and for his knowledge sharing platform is created his own space and benchmark. Yes, sir, to give us insights, always a pleasure hearing him, not only on this platform but even otherwise it's always glad to be in touch with him and have insights on a different perspectives of law. Over to you sir. Thank you, Mr because it is a pleasure always to share thoughts with you on your platform you've been working very hard and giving wonderful sessions to the young lawyers to the students. And I'm sure they must also include some of the young judges. The topic which I'm going to talk today I will talk less have more questions from you because I have talked on this topic at many platforms and it's a subject which is very dear to my heart. And I would not like to spend more time in giving a monologue lecture, but I would like certainly to have questions from the audience. Answer those questions if I can. I think one of the most important areas in the IPC scheme is the offense of human offenses against human body and especially the distinction between culpable homicide and amounting and not mounting to murder. This is a very important topic. And I have dealt with the subject as a student of law as a teacher of law in the judicial academy, and otherwise on different platforms and find that this is one area where there's a conceptual, clarity required, and that is very, very forensic conceptual clarity that needs to be given. If one has to appreciate the intent of those who try to bring out this distinction. I personally feel of all the offenses offenses affecting human body. A lot of effort has gone on the part of the drafters, Macaulay and his team, and except for some difficulties here and there I find it's very scientifically drawn, you know, subject. I will come to those nuances of this subject, and I will come to those scientific scheme that you can see permitting the provisions, especially dealing with offenses affecting human body. And more so when we deal with the distinction between culpable homicide and culpable homicide amounting not mounting to murder, which is very, very important for our understanding. I think two, three things very at the very outset, which I would like to make clear the fundamental principle of criminal law. General criminal law I'm talking about is ectos non-facetriumnesi mincitria. That is, no effect per se is criminal unless it is accompanied by guilty mind. And from this principle also comes out very clear. No scheme about the ingredients of an offense and we broadly say an offense is composite of three essential elements offense in the sense or is equal to a plus B plus C. Now A is the mincitria, B is the ectocereus and C is the forbidden consequence. The mincitria must accompany the act, the act must result in a forbidden consequence and the act and the consequence must be having a causal effect, not the casual effect, you know. There must be directly it's like Newton's laws of motion coming into operation to every action there is equal and opposite reaction. If you give a blow, what is the intensity of the blow? What is the nature of the weapon use? Which part of the body you attacked? How deep the injury has been caused? Which part of the body the injury has been caused are all cumulatively to be taken into account when we deal with offenses affecting human body. I'll come to these issues very, very important. Let me come first one by one. This act as non-faceted mincitria principle doctrine has been internalized in almost all provisions of the IPC. You have internal scheme inbuilt in every offense and I will demonstrate it to you and go to culpable homicide and culpable homicide amounting not amounting to murder. But one has to always keep in mind that there are three essential elements of an offense and in premeditated offense there are already always four stages in the commission of crime. So elements are three. Premeditated offenses, stages are four. Like we say intention, preparation, attempt and forbidden consequence ensuing or if the forbidden consequence does not ensue because of the factor independent of the accused, we still say that a person is liable for an attempt. Now that I'm not dealing with today but just to introduce you to the various nuances of the criminal law I thought I must mention today. Now when we say mincitria, the mincitria is guilty mind and with respect to the offenses against human body, we have essentially four kinds of mincitrias. We say intention to kill or intention to cause bodily injury. Knowledge of the consequences, rashness, which we call as advertent negligence or inadvertent negligence, negligence which we call as negligence which is culpable negligence. At least we will come to slowly gradually at various stages but just to say something which is every day we see when we go to a crime column in the newspaper. We always read that the police is investigating into the matter and they're trying to find the motive behind the crime. This is a very important concept in criminal law but it is not an essential element of an offense. But therefore I would like to make a distinction at the outset between motive, intention and knowledge. Now motive is something which is behind the mind and this is what you must not lose sight of. Motive prompts you to form an intent and intent is always within the mind which we call as a design or an idea which you want to achieve by doing an act. Motive is behind the mind, intent is within the mind that is when your mind is active you want to do something which you advertently want to do which you voluntarily want to do. I'll come to the concept of voluntariness again at some point of time and then we say knowledge is the awareness of the consequence. The two important concepts which I want to introduce at this stage, every person is presumed to be a person of a sound mind. The burden of proof is on the person who says that he was not a person of sound mind, you know 105 of the evidences and if you are not a person of sound mind what is the defense we say unsound is a fine. Now that's section 84 of the IPC I'll come to that later stage of time permits but presumption is that all of us are people of sound mind. We have the capacity to form a guilty mind, and we have a mind which can always perceive the consequence of an act. The perception of the consequence of an act is attributed to you as long as you are a person of sound mind and a person of prudent mind and every person is supposed to be a person of prudent mind. The mind is reasonable man, of course reasonable man is not an inflexible concept it is a flexible concept we say moves from society to society, but the question is how much of a knowledge we attribute to every person, irrespective of the fact what is the level of the education, what is the level of the, you know, accomplishment she has in life, everybody ought to know what are the vital parts of the body and what are not vital parts of the body. And the discussion on this subject is very beautifully illustrated by Justice Vivian Bosch in Versailles versus state of Punjab will come to that at appropriate stage. Everybody must be attributed with some knowledge about what are the vital parts of the body, what are non vital parts of the body. What is the, you know, awareness that can be attributed to him about the consequence of his act. Now when we talk about Motu I said Motu prompts you to form an intent and knowledge is the awareness of the consequence. Now how much of awareness must be there that will talk about in the course of time will come across a scale, which we say scale is from one to 10. And in this scale, we will use concepts like may possible likely most likely certainty, and this I will come to at a slightly later stage but let me deal first with some important aspects of Menceria. Menceria I said can be in the form of an intent like suppose when we go to section 299, which defines color people homicide, it says intention to kill or intention to cause bodily injury. It also has a class we says irrespective of the intent whether you have an intent or not but as long as you can be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence of an it is also something which has to do with culpable homicide will come to that at a later stage. Now besides intent to cause bodily injury or to cause death or knowledge of the consequence that it is likely to cause death or it may cause death or it is possible to cause death. All those things will come at a later stage. There are other two men serious which we talk about every person is supposed to be a reasonable man. And therefore when we say reasonable men we say prudent men when we say prudent men we say he must exercise do care and caution. He must act bona fide. Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code says what is bona fide. Nothing is said to be done in good faith. Now good faith is bona fide, bona fide is good faith. Nothing is said to be done in good faith or bona fide, which is not done with do care and caution. So therefore where you lack in care and caution and do not act as a prudent man and it is a it is a culpable negligence or culpable rashness on your part knowingly liking in care, unknowingly liking care, but you could have taken care had you known, had you care to know. Now those are all concepts which we must look at because section 304A will be coming to where we shall be talking about causing death by rash or negligent negligent, not amounting to culpable homicide, a very beautiful classification that will have to go and look at. Now, having said that Menceria can be either in the form of an intention, or in the form of a knowledge of the consequence is different from knowledge of a fact. Knowledge of consequence is always attributed to you as long as your act is a voluntary act, or further we'll go to when we go to negligence, advertisement negligence. And second we say is knowledge of the fact, and that is actually to be proved by the prosecution and this will come across when we go to section 300 subclass two. And this is something which I would like to demonstrate there, you must make a distinction between knowledge of a fact and knowledge of the consequence which is attributed to everybody. irrespective of his knowledge, actual knowledge or not, that is another aspect that I would like to do. Now second is act, what is an act? You see IPC has its own dictionary. IPC, when it talks about life, when we say offenses against human life, we say life means in section 45, unless the context requires otherwise, life means a life of a human being. Similarly, we have a definition of death. Section 46, unless the context requires otherwise, death means death of a human being. Very important concepts that we must understand. Similarly, when we go to section 80. Now section 80 falls in the chapter called general exceptions and section six of the IPC tells you that when you read an offense, you have to read it subject to the chapter called general defences. The very important system that you have to look at IPC is very, you know, IPC has two types of defenses. One is general defense. Second is partial defense. I'll come to those later on, but general defense is nothing is an offense. After having defined offenses provided punishment for the offenses, there is a section six. It says every offense under this code has to be read subject to the chapter general defenses. So therefore you must understand section 80 says accident or misfortune. Nothing is an offense. I want to read it out to you because it gives an idea about minceria and this is very, very material for a student of law for a young lawyer to understand. What is accident? What is misfortune? If it is an accident or misfortune, it is not punishable. Only that you have to prove burden of proof shifts to you because general exceptions are burden shifts from prosecution to the defense. Prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But when you raise a defense under the chapter four. The Supreme Court has very clearly said that unlike law of civil law, you don't have to plead defenses. It can be coming during the course of appreciation of the evidence also. And when you are dealing with the general defenses, the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence. Now these are two different aspects of the matter, which is not the subject matter of today. I just want to tell you because I am dealing with the minceria part of it. Section 80 says nothing is an offense which is done by accident or misfortune. And without any criminal intention, mark the words criminal intention minceria in the form of criminal intent or knowledge. Now I said knowledge in of the consequences. Knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner in a lawful means and with proper care and caution. If you have done it act, which is without criminal intent, without any criminal knowledge, we do care and caution. In doing that act, you have acted in a lawful manner by lawful means and in a lawful way, it is accident, misfortune, not punishable under criminal. So therefore gives you an idea that criminal intent, knowledge of the consequences, lack of proper care and caution are forms of the minceria that are talked about in IPC. And those are essential elements of various offenses. But when we go to act, we have section 32-33. Now section 33 says an act includes a series of acts and includes an illegal omission and also includes a series of illegal omissions. So what is act? When we say act serious, we say a physical act, we say an act which gives effect to the criminal intent, poisoning, slapping, hitting or omitting to do which were under a legal duty to do it. A neighbour may be starving, I may be under a moral obligation to feed him but I am under no legal obligation to feed him. But if I have a dependent family member and I am under legal obligation to provide food to him and deliberately want to cause his death by starvation, it is an act within the meaning of section 32-33 of the Indian People Court. So therefore this is act. Third is consequences. Act accompanied by guilty mind mass result in a forbidden consequence. Now these three things if you remember, I think we will go ahead, we can move ahead and go to the homicides. Now homicide is killing of a living human being by a human being. But all homicides are not unlawful. There can be lawful homicides. There are unlawful homicides. What are lawful homicides? A judge ordering death sentence which is upheld by the appellate courts and becomes a final decision. And as a result of that awarding punishment, a hangman hangs him under the directions of the authorities who are executing the orders of the court, these are all lawful homicides. In exercise of the right of private defence within the limits of the law if I cause somebody's death to protect my life is a lawful homicide. An officer, police officer in an encounter, I'm talking about genuine encounter against the terrorist if he causes the death of the terrorist may be a lawful homicide. So when we talk about homicides here we talk about unlawful homicides and all unlawful homicides are not culpable homicides. What are culpable homicides? What is a culpable homicide? A culpable homicide is what is defined in section 299. There may be homicides by rash or negligent, not amounting to culpable homicides that section 304 is. So those are unlawful homicides but not culpable homicides. What is culpable homicides is very important that I just want to talk to you. Now before I go to culpable homicides let me introduce you that when we talk about offences against human body I always say it is from use of criminal force or assault to murder. Especially when we are talking about body, when we are talking about hurt. You see at the bottom of the ladder of these offences when we say ladder we say every step is a higher offense. You have criminal force or assault. Above that we have hurt as defined in section 319 and it becomes punishable when we say voluntarily causing of a hurt. Above that when we go we say voluntarily causing of a grievous hurt. Above that we will go and we will see culpable homicides. Above that we will go we will see murder. Therefore every murder is a culpable homicide. Every culpable homicide is a voluntarily causing of a grievous hurt. Plus every voluntarily causing of grievous hurt is a voluntarily causing of hurt plus. And every voluntarily causing of hurt is a assault plus. So this plus is something which adds to the intensity of the offense makes it more serious. And if you say a murder is a culpable homicide involves voluntarily causing of hurt involves voluntarily causing of hurt involves voluntarily causing of an assault. So therefore you can see but in this process let me explain something more which is very very vital. We have a scale of 10 or 100 whatever you like to call it. And in this scale I am using Macaulay's scientific terminology. And what is Macaulay's scientific terminology. Macaulay's scientific terminology between act and the consequence. The causal factor I am talking about is certain X may cause death certain X possibly will result in death. Certain X are likely to result in death depending upon the nature of the weapon use part of the body attack. Number of the blows given intensity of the blows and the cumulative nature of the injuries on the part of the body. Now I am moving from may possible likely and then I say most likely and then I say certainty. Please understand this scheme of things which I am talking to you because this scheme of things will make all the difference in attributing the criminality to the accused. There may be cases where by your act the person may die but death is not a likely consequence. There may be people suffering of serious bodily injury not to my knowledge I give a blow instead of causing hurt it causes hurt of grave nature and the person dies. If this blow is given to a person of normal health and I do not have the knowledge about this physical infirmity of this man or bodily infirmity of this man. My act has to be judged in relation to the people of normal health. How many people will die how many people will survive is the question that we have to answer always. So therefore may possible likely most likely and certain. These are very important like I say when do I say may let us say I say may when people out of 1044 people will die. Six people will survive more people will survive less people will die. When do I say possible as a 50-50 not 50-50 biscuits 50-50 50 people survive 50 people die more than may is possible but less than likely is possible. And in likely we can say seven out of 10 seven people can die three people may survive. When we say most likely we say up to 99% people may die. Some one person people may survive most likely to die sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and certainty we say 100%. Now let me now take you to what is very important for us to understand section 39. Defines what is voluntarily. And that is very important for appreciating the distinction between 299 300. And also distinction between 299 and 3048 please have a look at section 39. Section 39 every word of section 39 is very important. A person is said to cause an effect now that is what I was talking about Newton's laws of motion. Cause and effect to every car effect that every cause there is an effect. And that's what section 39 says. A person is said to cause an effect voluntarily. Mark the words voluntarily it is defining what is voluntarily. When it causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it. He intended to cause it. Whereby he intended to cause it. Or by means which at the time of employing those means he knew. Knowledge. Intent as a men's area. Knowledge of the consequence as a men's area very important. But what is the most important part of it. Or has a reason to believe to be likely to cause it. When do we say voluntarily. We say when it is likely to cause it. So therefore not me. Not possible. For voluntarily likely is the benchmark. Whether it is hurt. Whether it is grievous or whether it is culpable. Please be very clear on that part of the matter because I am coming to the most. Important aspect of the distinction that I am coming to. There may be people who give an injury. Which causes death but is not likely to cast. I may be liable only for voluntarily causing of hurt or voluntarily causing of grievous hurt. Because it is not likely to cast. And that is very important for me to go to section 299. Now I go to section 299. But before I go to section 299. I must also tell you the distinction between intention and knowledge. Intention includes knowledge. If I intend it I ought to know. When Nathuram Godse gave tak tak tak. He ought to have known that firing on the vital part of the body. The person is in all probability is going to die. So therefore knowledge is attributed to the person. There may be people who have no intention. Either to cause death or to cause bodily injury. Yet looking at the nature of their head they ought to have known. And this is the illustration given to section 39. Please look at illustration to section 39. It will make things very clear. And the concepts under IPC. Criminal law will become very clear. Have a look at section 39 illustration. A sets fire by night. To an inhabited house in a large town. For the purpose of facilitating robbery. His intention is to commit robbery. And thus causes the death of a person. Here he may not have intended to cause death. May even be sorry that death has been caused by his act. Yet if he knew that he was likely to cause death. He has caused death voluntarily. You ought to know if you put a house on fire. For the purpose of facilitating robbery. And it is a densely populated place. Somebody is likely to die. If he is asleep in the building. And especially when you do it in the dead of the night. If a person dies even if you did not intend to kill him. You ought to have known somebody who may be sleeping inside the house. If a person is sleeping inside the house is likely to die. And if he dies, it is an act which you have done voluntarily. But this is a very important point to explain to you. Intention is one of the forms of guilty mind. But knowledge of the consequence. Likely consequence in this case. Voluntarily is very important. And therefore with this little background, let me take you straight away because I don't want to spend time. I don't have much time on explaining. Except that I just want to bring main highlights of the distinction between 299 and 300. Let me tell you as a layman. If somebody asks you what is culpable homicide. Amounting and not amounting to matters. I would say your answer should be like this. And this I will demonstrate to you. I'm just being broad. Two basic principles I want to talk about. Culpable homicide is the genus. And murder is a specie of that genus. IPC recognizes 3 forms of culpable homicides. 3 degrees of culpable homicides. The highest degree of culpable homicide is murder punishable under section 302 where death or life are present. Please remember it. Culpable homicide of the second degree is which is punishable under section 304 part one. Up to life in present and culpable homicide of third degree is what is punishable under 304 part two as culpable homicide not amounting to murder where there is no intention to kill where there is no intention to cause bodily injury where there is no knowledge of the likely consequence. Up to 10 years. Please see. Now let me demonstrate to you what I am talking to you as a three degrees of culpable homicide. Highest is 302 that is culpable homicide amounting to murder. Second is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 part one which is with intention to cause death or with the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. And culpable homicide of third degree which we talk about is with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or without any intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Now how do we explain it? Now you see a very beautiful way of approaching the problem is this. No inquiry under 299 which defines what is culpable homicide can begin unless there is death because section 3299 says whoever causes death. Death is a sign to a norm but mere death is not enough but death must be cast. If there is no death there is no 299 inquiry but merely because there is death it does not mean 299 is attracted. You have to go further. You have to ask the question. Whoever causes death by doing an act. Now we said act need not to be a single act it may be series of acts. It need not to be single illegal omission it may be series of illegal omissions you may want to kill a person by not immediate starvation but slow starvation. You want to kill a person by poisoning but slow poisoning so there may be series of acts involved. And the framers of the code also said words spoken can also be act in certain cases where you know a person is suffering of a serious heart ailment and you intentionally want to kill him and by saying something which is not true and which is very fatal you say your grandson to whom he is very greatly attached he said he died in a road accident which is not true and because of this word spoken by you he suffers a heart attack and dies. So therefore act may be a variety of ways including the words spoken by a person. Whoever causes death by doing an act with intention to cast. This is the first class of section tonight. If you intend to cast death and you do an act proximate cause of death and death results it is culpable homicide. So therefore Nathuram God says act cast death of Gandhi ji with intention to cast a motive maybe whatever was the motive but it was culpable homicide. Now class B of section 299 widens the scope of culpable homicide does not confine it only to intention to kill him and this is very very important which I am talking to you now with intention to cast such bodily injury as is likely to cast. Now mark the words death must happen death must happen by the act of the accused act of the accused must be accompanied by intention to cast such bodily injury which is present on the body of the deceased and that bodily injury must be likely to cast. So that is why if it is only may not applicable if it is possible not applicable minimum requirement is if given to 10 people 7 people must die by this kind of an injury 3 people may survive. So class B of section 299 does not want intention to kill even if you do not have intention to kill but you have the intention to cast the bodily injury which you cast and it is well established principle of law of evidence and if you read versus in case if you cast a bodily injury presumption of fact is you intended to cast it unless you prove that it was accidental or unintentional the burden is on you. Therefore B class is divisible into two parts and both parts are disjunct you if you draw versus in case analogy here also and that is first look at the body of the disease is there a bodily injury present yes is it serious yes was it the injury that was intended by the accused it is subjective of the offender if it is proved that it was his injury which he wanted to cast forget about the accused you have to ask only objective question answer depending upon the medical report postmortem report weapon used nature of the injury cast intensity of the blow is it likely to cast death if given to 10 people normal healthy people how many of them will survive how many of them will die let's say 6 to 7 people will die some of them may survive we say likely to cast death therefore culpable homicide or now this is most important net gets further widened no intention to kill no intention to cast bodily injury you did an act even if you had no intention to kill no intention to cast bodily injury but can we attribute the knowledge to you mother with a child in her lap in a panic because she is afraid of her husband who would have physically assaulted her who shouts at her in panic she jumps into the well along with the child no intention to kill the child no intention to cast bodily injury to the child yet you as a prudent mother ought to have known jumping into the well the child is likely to die and if the child dies culpable homicide please be very clear on that part now what did I say I said first class talks about intention to kill second class says intention to cast such bodily injury and objectively such bodily injury when cast is likely to cast death and death has resulted and third no intention to kill no intention to cast bodily injury yet as a prudent person you can be attributed with the knowledge conscious mother ought to have known is a very dangerous act jumping into the well along with the child child is likely to die and the child dies culpable homicide please be very clear on that now I want to take you to something more important because now we have to say first step is look at whether the case falls into 99 if it does not fall you can always go back to 304A you can as well consider it under 325 you can as well consider it under 323 because you have wide scope available to fix the liability you can't leave the person like this unless his case comes into section 80 which talks about accident or misfortune so therefore there is enough scope to further examine it but if case comes into 99 any of the three classes you don't have to stop it there that is very important part that I just want to say now you must move to section 300 because culpable homicide now further has to be second stages to test it whether it is also falling in 300 if it does not fall in 300 corresponding classes I'll come to those corresponding classes in due course it comes back as culpable homicide not amounting to murder that is one of the eventualities and becomes punishable under 304 depending upon whether it fell in A or B or C if it falls in A or B then it goes to 304 part 1 if it falls in C it goes to 304 part 2 please be very clear on that part note those questions you can ask me in the end I'll be very happy to answer your all anxieties on the subject so therefore one aspect second aspect I said don't stop it there now move to section 300 because what distinguishes 299 and 300 broadly speaking is higher degree of the probability of the death ensuing higher degree of the death ensuing probability of the death ensuing I'll come to that distinction very important distinction section 300 starts with except in cases here and after accepted very good aspect that you must think about except in cases here and after accepted culpable homicide is murder if it falls in any of the four classes but even if it falls in one of the four classes and it falls in one of the exceptions to section 300 it goes back as culpable homicide not amounting to murder please be very clear on that part of the matter if it falls in 300 if it falls in 300 you further have to examine whether it is also covered by one of the exceptions to section 300 and if it is it comes back as culpable homicide not amounting to murder but if it does not fall in any of the exceptions it becomes culpable homicide amounting to murder what is culpable homicide amounting not amounting to murder let me describe before I go to the nice cities of section 300 into 99 distinction very clear a case which falls into 99 but does not fall in 300 is culpable homicide not amounting to murder comes back as culpable homicide not amounting to murder and other category is a case which falls into 99 also falls in corresponding class of section 300 but also falls in one of the exceptions to section 300 it becomes culpable homicide not amounting to murder and I'll come to the justifications of the exceptions if I have time to discuss that part of the matter because section 300 starts with except in cases wherein after accepted that means if it falls in those culpable homicide is not murder then it comes back as culpable homicide not amounting to murder so what is culpable homicide amounting to murder is when it falls into 99 it falls in 300 and does not fall in any of the exceptions to section 300 it becomes punishable under section 302 IPC repeat again what is murder is a case falling into 99 falling also in 300 corresponding class and not falling in any of the exceptions to section 300 what is culpable homicide not amounting to murder case falling into 99 but does not fall in 300 or it falls in 300 but also falls in one of the exceptions to section 300 this is the fundamental framework of section 300 which you should keep in mind now let me go to the specifics 299 has only 3 classes whereas section 300 has 4 classes and generally if you should look at various cases and one of the cases is Punea or Punea was the state of Andhra Pradesh state of Andhra Pradesh versus R Punea just as Sarkarya has given the table of comparison of 299 in 300 and broadly he states A is comparable with 1 of 300 B of 299 is comparable with 2 and 3 of section 300 and C of 299 is comparable with 4 of section 300 please be very clear on that part but I would go slightly farther and bring a dimension which I always like to share and have opinions of my friends across the country is something which is neither in the books nor in the judgments nor in the writings except the writings of B.T. Kaur is explanation 1 to section 300 and its significance in relation to section 299 B and section 300 subclass 2 because fundamental principle is every enquiry must start with section 299 if 299 is applicable only then your enquiry should start with 300 you cannot jump at 300 and then say come to 299 because it's a very dangerous course you can never come out of 299 then but if you start with 299 you can always go back from 299 even if 299 is not applicable you will still examine it somewhere else so therefore as a lawyer as a judge as a student of law enquiry must start with 299 because there is scope to go out of it there's a scope to go beyond it that is where the scientific methodology that has to be adopted must be adopted whenever you are examining a case under the IPC 299 300 now I just wanted to bring in something which is very important and that is where I want to add small dimension which I do not want to take in detail today because we do not have that much of time to discuss but I just want to add something to your mind which should be your understanding my submission to you is this a case will fall in section 300 subclass 2 only when it first falls in section 299 and therefore how do we bring in that element in 299 and I always say in the explanation 1 to section 299 I will not go to all the explanations but I will only go to one explanation when you go to section 299 explanation 1 it says a person who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder disease or bodily infirmity and thereby accelerates the death of that person who has caused his death a person has a disease supreme a person has a disease liver a person has a disease heart either of the three situations I gave in the beginning that illustration I said you give a blow without knowing that he is having this bodily infirmity or disease then my act has to be judged but where I know that he is having this disease and yet my venture to give that blow then my act has to be in relation to that person it may be likely to cause his death but may not be likely to cause the death of the normal human being and this is something which you must understand because when we go to 299 and 399 section 299a is equivalent to same as is 300 subclass 1 with intention to cause death but b2 is important now look at section 300 subclass 2 with intention to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows mark the words as the offender knows is likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused now it deals with the spasically people who are bodily infirmity suffer a bodily infirmity to the knowledge of the used and if you your blow is likely to cause his death and death is caused it is not only culpable homicide but this is where a deterrence has been brought in so that you do not venture to play misadventure with the people of bodily infirmity please be very clear now I would like you to kindly see now if this case has been murdered it has to be culpable homicide first so that is why I always say explanation 1 has to be read with class b of section 299 and there has to be implicit knowledge introduced and 3 classes 3 cases have to be brought in section 2993 please understand that part of the thing I say 3 cases this 299 b where a person is a person of normal health not to the knowledge of the used third case of person of abnormal health to the knowledge of the used third becomes comparable with class 2 and 1 and 2 cases are comparable with class 3 of section 300 this is a foot for thought which I am leaving with you think over it because otherwise it is difficult to bring a case in 300 subclass 2 unless you first bring some element of this class in 299 b at some stage how do you do it I say read explanation 1 along with class b and have implicit did the accused know that this man was suffering of this bodily infirmity or not if yes is comparable with 300 subclass 2 and that is where I would say now let me come to another aspect of the matter and that is class 3 I want to very quickly deal with these two aspects because these are very important aspects which I want to take up today with you now I said what is the distinguishing feature broadly speaking between 299 and 300 we say it is a higher degree of the probability of the death in showing now let me demonstrate it I said it earlier I will demonstrate it now I am demonstrating it look at section 300 subclass 3 which deals with the people of normal health which deals with the people of normal health and people of normal health not to the knowledge of the accused I will not take that part let me take only normal health look at the language with intention to cause bodily injury every word is important and the intended bodily injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature with intention to cause bodily injury and the intended bodily injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature class b of section 299 says likely to cause it with intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause it now the best case on this is Vilsa Singh versus state of Punjab and the principles that have been laid down in that case have become the locus classicus and in one of the judgments and subsequent judgments it has been repeatedly said by the Supreme Court I am only referring to state of UP versus Virindra Prasad 2004 judgment where the Supreme Court referring to Vivian Bose in Vilsa Singh's case says the test laid down by Vilsa Singh for the applicability of the class is now ingrained in our legal system and has become part of the rule of law and have become local classicus but this is the kind of respectability that has been gained by the principles laid down by Justice Vivian Bose in Vilsa Singh's case and he rejected the argument the argument that was raised in that case was it should not only be that there should be intended bodily injury and that accused must know that it is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cast the court rejected this argument he said you have to read this section this class in the 300 class III disjunctively this is very important not conjunctively disjunctively and how do you read it you have to see whether the bodily injury which is present on the body of the disease was the intended bodily injury that is subjective of the offender if it was what he wanted to cast forget about the accused then you have to objectively see whether these injuries are sufficient to cast death in the ordinary course of nature irrespective of what the accused is going to do so there is a subjective test there is a objective test and in fact the tests are like this which I would like to read out to you which is very very important for us the court said it was argued with much circumlocution that the facts set out about do not disclose that there was an intention to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient to cast death in the ordinary course of nature it was said that the intention that section requires must be related not only to the bodily injury inflicted but also to the class and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cast death this is the favorite argument in this kind of case but is fallacious if there was an intention to inflict an injury that is sufficient to cast death in the ordinary course of nature then the intention is to kill in that event the third would become unnecessary because the act would fall under the first part of the section that is first part of section 300 if in our opinion the two classes are disjunctive the first is subjective of the offender and the second part is objective enquiry irrespective of the intention of the accused now the test that have been evolved by the supreme court in Birsa Singh case let me enumerate those tests because these are the golden words that have flown from Justice Bose and have become locus classicus over the period of time first it must be established quite obdictively that the bodily injuries present now here there was in this case one superior thrust in the abdominal region which brought out three coils of intestines out of which undigested food started oozing out the person died the next day just one superior thrust the intensity of the blow was three coils of intestines came out along with the sphere question was whether it was sufficient to cast it in the ordinary course of nature but before that because that was an objective enquiry question was whether it was the intended bodily injury that is subjective of the offender court said like this first it must established quite obdictively that a bodily injury is present second the nature of the injury must be proved these are purely objective investigation look at the body of the disease is there a bodily injury is it serious bodily injuries third was this injury that the accused wanted to cause third it must be proved there was the intention to inflict this bodily injury that to say it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended that means subjective of the offender once these three elements are proved to be present enquiry further moves and fourthly it must be proved that bodily injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death this part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender and this has become the golden taste for determining the applicability of class thirdly so therefore what is requirement to cause death what is the requirement of class three of section 300 is not only likely to cause death but sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature if it is sufficient and the court said one thrust in the abnormal region out of which three coils of intestine scheme is not only likely to cause death but is sufficient to cause death left to itself in the ordinary course the person must die and the crackles can save a person so therefore it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder because none of the exceptions to section 300 was attracted in this case now let me go to the lastly and the lastly is class fourthly and it's the language of fourthly you must keep in mind which is important if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must 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 a force it now class C up to 99 says only knowledge that the act is likely to cause death but here it says many things it says imminently dangerous in all probability likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely cause and there is no excuse now it's an essential requirement of class fourthly and there is no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such bodily injury or death and this is where you have to see not only should the act be imminently dangerous not only should we all probability likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely almost certainty if not certainty something nearing certainty that is the requirement and further there should be no excuse for incurring the risk of causing these bodily injuries three cases and I will stop there I'll take up and this is a beautiful way of explaining the whole thing and I will explain whole aspect of class C 399 C 300 class fourthly and 304 A and these three illustrations please just keep in mind never forget these three illustrations I said class C and class fourth of thirdly 300 deal with only knowledge of the consequence of death or intention to cause bodily injury you can be liable for murder even when you have no intention to kill you have no intention to cause bodily injury but if you have knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous in all probability going to cause death and there is no excuse for incurring the risk of causing death now let me demonstrate three cases all cases of mother and child 304 A who had a six months old baby her husband was a cruel husband and she wanted to go and meet her parents he did not allow her to take the child to the parents who were living not very far away from their place early in the morning when this man was in slumber she picked up the child and ran towards her father's place parental place when she was some distance away from the home nearing a railway crossing she heard the voice this man got out of the slumber and he found the child and wife missing ran towards that road which led to her parental house shouted at her she was in panic because of the fear that she may be beaten up by this man she found a well nearby jumped into the well along with the child child-eyed mother survived one case second case a wife lived with her husband and sister-in-law and this sister-in-law would make her life miserable and the husband would take the side of his sister she got so fed up one day she announced she is going to jump into the well along with the children and left for the well jumped into the well along with the children children-eyed mother survived third case wife who had a child on her back wanted to go and meet her parents the husband had a fight with her, called with her did not allow her to go she was totally upset while going some distance away in that upset state of mind she jumped into the well which was nearby unmindful of the presence of the child mother survived in all three cases they are put on trial and all three cases you will see we have different decisions and this is what is the beauty about law this is the beauty of understanding the true distinction between 299 300 and 304 now in now how did it happen it so court said first case they said every mother is supposed to be a prudent mother so she jumped into the well along with the child imminently dangerous act in all probability the child was likely to die but what did she have an excuse for incurring the risk of causing death now this excuse which is used is an essential part of section 300 subclass fourthly this is very important and the court said excuses are legal excuses are defences partial defences defences full defences but this excuse is looking at the facts and circumstances of the case does it warrant an excuse she was in a panicky state of mind she was not able to decide momentarily what will be good for them and what will not be good for them court said there was an excuse for incurring the risk of causing death essential element of section 300 subclass fourthly not present culpable homicide not amounting to murder second where the girl announces that she is going to jump into the well considered decision she had many other options this is not similar to the other case therefore it is no excuse therefore murder she was punished for murdering her children and third court said momentarily not mindful of the presence of the child but had she cared to know she would have come to know therefore it was culpable negligence not amounting to culpable homicide punishable under section 300 subclass so therefore you can see we have tried to cover most of the areas that I wanted to cover through these three illustrations but only one thing that I want to further cover you see there is a rashness in 304A negligence or or negligence is the genus rashness is the species the distinction is one is knowingly negligent second is unknowingly negligent but she would have known that she lacked in care and caution had she taken due care and caution now but when we say rashness the rashness in 304A is of lower order because not amounting to culpable homicide rashness in 304 subclass 299 subclass C is of higher order likely and when we go to the rashness in 300 class 4 please of the highest order imminently dangerous in all probability so you can understand that is why we say categorization of the offenses it's a degree of the probability of the death ensuing and what is negligence we say lacking in care and caution if you had taken due care and caution you would have come to know that you are lacking in care and caution rashness knowingly lacking in care and caution know that it may result in death but hope it will not but it results because you have knowingly failed in your care and caution I do not know whether I should take up exceptions to section 300 but I think we should give more time to the question answers were already 1 hour 15 minutes ahead so therefore I only want to say just 5 minutes more which I want to take and I want to definitely take them is because you must understand the exceptions to section 300 are all exceptions based upon suddenness at least 1 to 4 grave and sudden provocation making distinction between premeditated offenses and offenses committed on the spur of the moment exceeding right of private defense when you exercise right of private defense is an unforeseen situation and there you do not weigh your you know defense in golden scales therefore you may bono finally exceed your right of private defense without being you know acting in a cruel manner or taking undue advantage of the situation sudden fight or a person who is a public servant exceeding the authority given in law like suppose you have to control a mob you cannot weigh your movements in golden scales there also so therefore suddenness of a situation needs sudden solutions immediate solutions therefore those are treated leniently only that exception 5 is talking about consent consent is a partial defense consent is not a full defense that is you will find in section 300 exception 5 that is why euthanasia is unless you were cases covered by common cause or other cases is even still today culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the person has consented to the euthanasia so those are some of the areas but I had something else which I think I will take up some day with Mr. Vikas one area that I want to take up with you on some future occasion is general defences and partial defences their core relationships it's something which has not been dealt with any book this has not been dealt with by the court in any of the judgments but I have worked on it and dealt with the subject but I will definitely like someday to come and deal with these five defences along with the general defences as a separate topic thank you very much and I will be very happy to answer all your questions so we are thankful the way you have given the insight it was a blissful listening for us and as they say that whenever it is convenient to you would take the platform not only for general exception but for any session it's always a treat to hear you thank you very much thanks a lot not only me I am saying on behalf of all those participants I can see the messages just pouring in and some people actually posted but actually some people most of them are just like in a whatsapp group only 10% people participate 90% just only read in that whatsapp group so same way 10% people respond to the session but they are actually enjoying and the fact that the people are not logging out of the webinar shows that even on the facebook it was a stagnant one that people have actually enjoyed I will see if there are any questions I think that you mesmerized everyone so much that they in fact forgot to even post the questions except for thank you and very informative sanction the last one I can read it says a fantastic articulation on the answers of 299 and 300 Abdul is wanting to ask I will unmute him yeah please please anybody who wants to get himself unmuted we can do that also Raghavendra says what is the universal definition of an act pardon what is the universal definition of an act good afternoon sir yes yes tell me Abdul may I go ahead with the question yeah yeah yeah please tell me tell me you talked about the probability you talked about the probability of death will the scenario be considered when a male hits a woman counterpart you talked about the possibility of death that is in May what I said was you see there are degrees which you must keep in mind the words that have been used in the IPC are very scientific words very point that voluntarily talks about likely is the benchmark for volunteeriness you see when we talk about voluntarily causing a previous hurt please understand you see if you go to section 320 section 320 is the residue class of defining what is the grievous hurt now grievous hurt one of the definitions in the residue class you will find is endangering human life now endangering human life in the context of 325 is where death is a possibility it may result in death but if death is only possibility he will still be liable only for 325 it is only when death is a likely consequence and death has happened then he will be liable that's why I say may possible likely most likely certainty and when we say between the culpable homicide and murder we say higher degree of probability probable it has to be 299 only talks about probable likely but 300 talks about most probable so therefore higher degree of probability is required but when we talk about possibility possibility cases will not come into 99 even if death has taken place that is what I was trying to make possible is less than likely likely is more than possible possible is more than may is less than possible that's why we say what is rashness a person knows that he has failed to take due care and caution but hopes nothing untoward will happen but it may happen that is why we say 304 not amounting to culpable homicide yes please yes somebody says he wants to ask a question yes Mr. Grisha that's what I said you know probable probabilities because it says likely so the benchmark for 299 is likely and death must have happened Mr. Grisha Mr. Grisha correct you are right higher degree of probability is the difference between the two probability it has to be but higher degree of probability is the difference between the two but higher degree of probability is the difference between the two but higher degree of probability is the difference between the two but higher degree of probability is the difference between the two as it is normal if you have to explain it in a very simple way, simple way to try and explain is this sir namaste thank you for the excellent talk my query is this suppose at the spur of the moment the accused uses force another force. At that point of time, there is absolutely no intention of the accused to cause any previous injury. But it has led to a previous injury because the victim has instigated further. Like for example, this is a common thing which happens in an argument. So when you say the victim says, accused will give him another blow. So your question brings in that point that I was wanting to tell you next time. Question is, if you are talking about defenses, defenses under the IPCR only, one of the defenses that could be talked about is private defense, right of private defense. And for that, you have to determine who is the offender, who is the defender. If you are dealing with question of grave provocation, that's a different story. It may be a mitigating factor, but it will not absolve you of the criminality. And once you take law in your own hands, you have no right of private defense. You see, very important things that criminal law, I think foundations have to be very clear. No right to punish is a sovereign function of the state. However weak the state may be, you cannot take away the right to punish it is, but your right of private defense is inversely proportional to the capacity of the state. The more the stronger the state, the less the right of private defense. The more the weak the state, the more right of private defense. But right of private defense is something is a part of the social contract theory. We know the state cannot at every step protect us. And if we wait for the state help to meet a situation by that time will be raised to the ground. That is the foundation of the right of private defense. You can't wait for the state help. Self-help is the best help for the protection of the state is not available to you. But you have to be very clear that you can exercise right of private defense only and only if you are a defender. If you get provoked by the exercise of the right of private defense, you cannot get provoked by the right of private defense. If you go to section 96, it's very clearly stated there. So you have to be very clear. Defenses are very clearly enumerated. Partial defenses, general defenses, nothing beyond that. You will be an offender if you do not bring your case in the general or partial defenses as provided in the IP. I think that should be able to answer your question. Now, we have Shirdi Ravindra. He wants to ask a question. Yes. A very good evening sir. Thank you for this wonderful session. So I have a doubt regarding this thing. Even one innocent Kani punished as per the Indian judicial system as we say right, then why will a person who doesn't even have any intention to injure the other person or any intention to kill, why was he punished? Menceria is not only intention. Menceria also includes a person must be responsible for his conduct. You as a prudent member of the society or to know the consequences of your acts. And if you do a harmful act, you should be liable for punishment. You see, what do we say? Don't be rash. Be prudent. And that is what we section 80 says. What is the defense? Is it an accident or misfortune? That is all. You should not intend. You should not be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and you should not lack in due care and caution. If all these things are forms of menceria and therefore a person will become liable like mother who jumped into the well along with the child. Mother became liable because mother ought to know that jumping into the well will cause the death of the child. And child is too tender. A person cannot sink, cannot swim. And therefore the child in the pond or in the well is likely to die and is imminently dangerous act. In all probabilities, she is likely to die. So therefore it becomes a culpable homicide and it becomes murder. But it did not become murder in one case because they said she had an excuse because of the fright she was undergoing and the panic she was put in by the present sufferer husband. So therefore in that is those cases you must read. These are cases which are old cases. There are Geyarasi Bai and Supadiyas cases. These are all the high court cases. All about high court case, Madhibharat case, Bombay high court case. These cases you must all read because these give you the idea that look here you know mother in such circumstances became liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Yes. Probability has to be, you see don't write probability is less in 2019. No. Death must be a probable consequence in 2019 and it must be more probable in 300. That is the way to put it. And death must have taken place because death is the sign going on for any inquiry under 2019. Lucky are those who give fatal blows. People are taken to hospitals saved. But merely because a person could have been taken to hospitals saved is no defense because that is what the explanation 3 talks about in section 299. I did not have time to go to that but I just want you to read the whole of the provision yourself. So these are very important things that one must remember. Ponya says, can you give some case digest? Yeah, I think I can send to Mr. Vikas. I will share it with the group. I'll share, you kindly share it with the group. I'll give you some beautiful cases. Just read those cases. Yeah, it will be always a pleasure to. Yeah, I'll definitely do that. Uh, Gagan wants to ask Gagan. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, Mr. Gagan. I want to ask the question. Gagan, you will have to unmute yourself. Gagan is not unmuting. So we don't have any other further questions. Thank you very much. God bless you all. Read criminal law thoroughly. You must read all provisions, statute, good cases. It's a very fascinating subject, you know, and we need a lot of good criminal lawyers and criminal judges, not criminals, but criminal law-knowing judges. I have reminded that in one of the webinars, the bench, the judge, he was sitting that he came on our platform. He said that I am handling the criminal roster, but normally people say that he's a criminal judge. You know, criminal law-knowing judges, yes, criminal law experts. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Sir, one question I mean, welcome. It says, during the course of trial, mensria should always be proved. If not proved, will the accused be acquitted? Mensria is an essential element of the case, but if you see, if you do an act, presumption is that you intended to do it, burden of proof shifts on you to prove that you did accidentally or unintentionally. So this is how it goes in the trial stage. This is how the trial works, you know. Yes, you have to prove the mensria. There's no doubt about it. Yes. Once you read all these judgments, which are themselves are classic pieces to be read out. Your doubts are also described the same way, like we hear the webinars by people like Coffee on Olive. Before we part for the day, tomorrow we will have the session on Lease under the Transfer of Property Act, Concepts and Disputes with Legal Overview by Mr. Uday Hola, a senior advocate and a former advocate general of Kanataka. So do stay connected with us. Meanwhile, I will unmute Mr. Trivikram. Somehow earlier he could not be an advocate's association. Trivikram. Mr. Trivikram, good evening. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I consider it to be a privilege. And as you rightly pointed out, we were blessed to gain knowledge from Dr. Kaur. Very insightful and academically very enriching session. Thank you so much. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much. Thank you all. And I must definitely say this. I salute you for your enormous knowledge. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much. God bless you all. We have shared the YouTube link and the sync. People can do stay connected with us. Thank you, everyone. Stay safe. Stay blessed. And so keep on sharing your blessings as well as your knowledge to upon us. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you.