Offences against the human body

AMITH SRIRAM K S
ASISSTANT PROFESSOR
  Offences against the human body’ encompasses a wide range of criminal
offences that typically entail bodily violence, the fear of bodily harm, or
other actions taken against an individual’s will. Section 299 to 377 lays
down several offences relating to the human body.
 According to Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code (1860), the word ‘person’
includes any company or associa­tion or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not. Further the term ‘men’ and ‘women’ is defined in
Section 10 of the IPC. The word ‘man’ denotes a male human being of any
Introduction age and the word ‘woman’ denotes a female human being of any age. These
crimes are usually perpetrated by inflicting physical harm or using force on
another person. The nature of such offences is usually divided into four
categories, they are:
1. fatal,
2. non-fatal,
3. sexual, and
4. non-sexual.
  The word ‘homicide’ is a combination of two Latin
words: homo and cido. Homo signifies human, and cido denotes
human killing. Homicide is defined as the killing of a person by
another person.
Culpable  Homicide might be lawful or unlawful.
homicide  Lawful homicide refers to instances in which a person who has
(Section 299) caused the death of another person cannot be held responsible for
that person’s death. For example, when exercising one’s right to
private defence (Section 96) or in other cases described in
Chapter IV of the General Exceptions of the Indian Penal Code,
viz Section 76 to 106.
 • There are two types of culpable homicide:
1. Culpable homicide that does not rise to the level of murder (Section 299).
2. Culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 300).
Culpable homicide and murder are both cognizable offences that are not
bailable or compoundable. Both can only be tried in a court of session.
 Definition
 As per Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, “Whoever causes death by
doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of
CONTD.. 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”.
 Illustration: A is aware that Z is hiding behind a bush. B is completely
unaware of this. A causes B to fire at the bush with the intent of causing, or
knowing that it is likely to cause, death. Z is killed by B’s fire. In this case, B
may have committed no crime, but A has committed culpable homicide.
  In the case of Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab (1979),
a person who was being pursued was found not guilty of
culpable homicide. When a man was being pursued in an
open field by his enemies, who had already killed one of

CASE LAW his relatives in the incident, he jumped into a well to save
himself and died in the process, it was determined that
the accused’s actions did not constitute an act done with
the intent or knowledge specified in Section 299 of the
Indian Penal Code, and they were acquitted.
  Culpable homicide amounting to murder
 Culpable homicide amounting to murder is dealt with under Section 300. In
other words, the Section stipulates that in some circumstances, culpable
homicide constitutes murder. As a result, in order to be categorised as murder,
an act must first meet all of the criteria for culpable homicide.
 Section 300 stipulates that, unless in the following circumstances, culpable
homicide constitutes murder:
• When an act is committed with the intent to kill someone. For murder, a high

Murder
level of intention is required. There must be intent present, and that desire
must be to cause the person’s death, not just injury or serious harm without

(Section
the intent to kill.
• Causing physical harm that the criminal knows would result in death. The

300) second scenario involves an offender who has particular knowledge of the
victim’s health and utilises that knowledge to damage the victim in such a way
that the person dies. For this, one can refer to Section 300 which states that
the perpetrator ‘knows to be likely to cause the death,’.
• Bodily harm that results in death in the natural course of things. These
instances include acts involving bodily injury that, in the normal course of
events, would result in the person’s death.
• Committing an impending risky act for no valid reason would result in death or
physical damage that would result in death. This category includes acts that
are so dangerous that if they are committed, they will result in death or bodily
injury that will result in the death of a person, and they are done without any
legal justification
  1. In the following situations, culpable homicide would not be
considered murder:
• Culpable homicide would not be considered murder if it did not meet
the additional standards of the corresponding clause of Section 300.
• If a culpable homicide occurs within one of the five exceptions to
Section 300, it is not considered murder.

When culpable  2. The exceptions to Section 300 are listed below.

homicide doesn’t • Grave and sudden provocation.
amount to murder • Exceeding in the exercise of the right of private defence.
• Public servant exceeding powers given to him by law.
• Causing death in a sudden fight, without premeditation.
• Consent of the deceased above the age of 18.
  Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if the offender loses his or her
ability to control himself or herself as a result of the grave and sudden
provocation and kills the person who provoked him or her or any other
person by mistake or accident. It just lowers the risk of being charged with a
crime. There is no absolute immunity from criminal culpability.
 In the KM Nanavati vs. State of Bombay (1961),
 Exceeding the limits prescribed by law in the exercise of the right of private
defence in good faith
EXCEPTION  Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if the offender, in the exercise
of a right of private defence of person or property in good faith, exceeds the
power granted to him by law and kills the person against whom he exercises
the right.
 The benefit of the exception can be obtained if it is also demonstrated that
the criminal caused the death in question without premeditation or with the
aim to cause more harm than is required.
  HANSA SINGH V STATE OF PUNAJB.
 DATTU GENU GAIKWAD vs STATE OF MH
CASE LAWS.  BHURA RAM VS STATE OF R J
 ONKARNATH SINGH VS STATE OF UP.
  Public servant exceeding powers given to him by law
• Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if the
perpetrator while acting as a public servant or assisting a
public servant in the pursuit of public justice, exceeds the
authority granted to him by law and causes death.

CONTD.. • The benefit of the exception can only be claimed if the

act was done in good faith and in the belief that it was
legal and essential in the proper discharge of his duties. It
must also be demonstrated that the criminal had no
enmity against the deceased
 Death caused as a result of a sudden fight
1.Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if it is
performed in the heat of passion during a sudden
quarrel and without the offender taking advantage
of the situation or acting in a cruel or unusual
manner.
CONTD. 2.It makes no difference who provokes or conducts
the assault in this case.
Consent of the deceased above the age of 18
 Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if the
person who is killed is over the age of 18 and
suffers or risks death with his or her own consent.
  DHARMAN V STATE OF PUNJAB.
 NARAYAN NAIR RAGHAVAN NAIR V STATE OF

CASE LAWS TRAVANCORE.

 UJAGAR SINGH
 DASRATH VS STATE OF BHIAR.
 1. The degree of criminality is the main distinction between
murder and culpable homicide. In the instance of murder,
the level of criminality is higher than in the case of
culpable homicide.
2. Every homicide is first and foremost a responsible
homicide. However, not every culpable homicide is
murder. To put it another way, responsible homicide is a
Distinction between
genus, whereas murder is simply a species.
murder and culpable
homicide 3. The term ‘murder’ has been defined under Section 300.
It is illegal under Section 302 of the Criminal Code.
Culpable homicide is a less serious crime that is
penalised under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. There is a narrow line between culpable homicide and
murder, yet it is discernible. The important words
contained in the separate clauses of Section 300 must be
noted in order to identify the two offences.
  PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT
AMOUNTING TO MURDER (Sec. 304)- 10 years and
fine.
 PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER BY LIFE CONVICT

CONTD..  (Sec. 303) if any. person undergoing sentence of life

imprisonment commits murder, he shall be punished with
death.
 Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death
or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
  Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person
whose death was intended
 Under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code-
• The accused must have planned or known that his or her actions were likely to
result in death.
• The act must have resulted in the death of a person, even if the offender had
no intention or knowledge that the act would result in the death of a person
who was murdered.
S.301 • In the foregoing situation, the accused would face the same punishment as if
he had killed the person whose death he intended, knew, or was likely to kill.
• The Doctrine of transferred malice is the broad name for the notion enshrined
in Section 301. According to this doctrine, when a person does injury to a
different object than the one, he intended due to an accident or error, thereby
causing death, he is criminally liable for the offence.
• A person whose case falls under Section 301 will be penalised under Sections
302 or 304, depending on the situation.
  Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code talks about
causing death by negligence or rash act. This Section
mentions that if a person causes the death of another

S.304A person by doing a negligent or rash act which does not

amount to culpable homicide shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term of a maximum of two years, or
with fine, or with both.
4 essentials
 There are four basic elements that a person has to fulfill in order to do a
negligent act. These elements are as follows:

• Duty: For committing a negligent act, there must be some duty on the part
of the defendant. Here it is important to understand whether the defendant
has taken legal duty of care towards the plaintiff.

• Breach of Duty: After fulfilling the first criteria the plaintiff must prove
that the defendant has breached the legal duty imposed on him/her. It talks
about the breach of duty on the part of the defendant which he/ she is
expected to do as he/ she has some legal duty towards the plaintiff.

• The action of causing something: It means that the damage caused to the
plaintiff is due to the act of the defendant. Here the defendant may do an
act which is not expected from him/her or the defendant may be negligent
in not doing an act which was expected from him/ her.

• Damages: At last what matters is, there must be some damage/injury that
is caused to the plaintiff and this damages should be the direct consequence
of the defendant’s act.
  Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar, 1964
 The definition of the rash or negligent act can be understood by the famous
case of Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar. In this case, the Supreme Court
stated the difference between the rash or negligent act. Here, in this case, the
appellant was charged under Section 304A of IPC for causing the death of a
woman who stayed near the house of the appellant. Here the deceased was
using the toilet of the accused for about a week. The accused gave the oral
warnings related to it to the deceased, but the deceased continue to use the
toilet of the accused. As he (accused) finds his oral warnings to be insufficient
so he put a naked copper wire carrying electricity on the passage leading to
the latrine. On the day of the occurrence of the incident, the woman went to
Rash and the latrine of the appellant and there she touched the fixed wire and she died

Negligent
because of this. There were several issues raised in this case. Here the Court
held that the mere fact that the person entering is a trespasser does not
entitle the owner of the land to inflict personal injury upon the trespasser. The
same principle also applies to the fact that the owner inflicted the injury by
indirect ways of doing something. The owner should know that it may cause a
serious injury to the trespasser.
 Here the Apex Court also held that in this case, the appellant would be liable
for his rash act (as the act was considered to be reckless) and the accused
was held liable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
  Death must be the Direct Result
 Section 304A talks about a situation where the death of a person must be the direct result/
consequence of the act of the defendant. Here it is important to remember one point that whether the
alleged act of the defendant is the direct result of the rashness or the negligence of the defendant
 Suleman Rehiman Mulani & Anr v. the State of Maharashtra, 1968
 In the case of Suleman Rehiman Mulani & Anr v. the State of Maharashtra, the Supreme also
applied the same concept which is already discussed above. In this the appellant was driving a jeep
and he has learners license to drive the same and no one was sitting with him who has a proper
driving license. Here the appellant on his way struck a person named Bapu Babaji Bhiwarkar by his
jeep. In order to protect the injured person he put him inside the jeep and went to a doctor who

CONTD. refused to give medical aid to an injured person and the doctor directed them to go Medical
Dispensary and the appellant instead of going their went somewhere else as a result injured person
died. Here appellant was found negligent as he doesn’t have proper documents related to driving a
jeep. But the major question which was put before the court was whether the death of the person
was caused due to the direct consequence of the appellant negligent act. The Supreme Court held
that the death of the person does not the amount due to the direct consequence of the appellant
therefore he can not be liable under Section 304A of the IPC. The Apex Court does not find any
evidence which shows that the negligent or rash act of the appellant was the proximate cause of
damage.
 However, in this case, the appellant was held liable according to the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act,1988.
  Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, 1972
 In the very famous case of Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat the Supreme Court again
explained the concept that a person is liable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal
Code only if the principle of causa causans is fulfilled. Here this case is about medical
negligence. Here the appellant who was Chemist Incharge in a chemical industry along
with five other members were charged under Section 304A of the IPC. They were found
to be negligent in manufacturing the solution of glucose which was later consumed by
the patients of different hospitals and 13 patients died by the injection of the solution. It
was found that the solution contains more lead nitrate than what was permitted. Here the
Prabhakaran was the Chief Analyst of the Testing Laboratory. He was found negligent in

CASE LAW his part as he did not prepare the solution according to the Drug Control Act. Here the
Supreme Court held that the appellant ( Prabhakaran) can not be liable alone. The court
further stated that the appellant was not only negligent, here it was also the duty of
several other persons to maintain the quality of the solution. Under the principle of
the causa causans there is the causal chain that consists of many links(acts), it talks
about the act which ultimately contributes to the consequence. Here the action of the
appellant was found to be the only one of the causes of all causes. In other words, it can
be explained that the appellant action was one of the causes of death and it was found to
be insufficient to be the ultimate cause of the death of the 13 persons.
  Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is applicable in
the cases related to the rash and negligent act in driving
any vehicle along a public highway. Due to this negligent
and rash act of one person the other person suffers. Here
the death of a person will result in the legal proceedings
against the defendant. Here all the elements of Section

CONTD.. 304A need to be checked. According to this Section, the

person who is driving the vehicle must be either
negligent or does the act rashly. The person must not
have any intention or knowledge related to the fact that
this act of his/ her will lead to the death of any person.
And at last, there must be the death of a person due to
this rash/ negligent act of the defendant.
  Mohammed Aynuddin@Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000
 The case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh is another
example where driving in a rashly or negligently manner was questioned. In this case,
the appellant appealed against previous decision to the Supreme Court of India. The
major question, in this case, was whether the driver of the bus was really negligent in
driving? Here the driver was driving a bus of the Andhra Pradesh Road Corporation. A
passenger named Agamma boarded the bus and she fell down from the bus as the bus
moved forward. And as the rear wheel of the bus ran over her the women suffered from
many injuries and due to these injuries, she died ultimately. According to a witness as the
woman fell down the bus stopped after traveling some distance as the appellant heard
the voice to stop the bus.
 Here, in this case, the various elements of Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code were

CASE LAW again cross-checked. Here the Supreme Court held that it is wrong to presume the
negligence on the part of the driver in any motor accident negligence. It was further held
that in an accident like this, it becomes important for the driver to prove that he/she is
not negligent. The Supreme Court also talked about the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
The Apex Court said that this principle can not be applied everywhere and its application
depends on the situation.
 In the present case, the Supreme Court found that there can be negligence on the part of
the passenger, there can be negligence on the part of the driver as well as there is the
possibility that it is an accident. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the driver
was unaware of the fact that there is even a possibility of an accident. The evidence, in
this case, was found to be too scanty to fasten the driver with criminal negligence.
  Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
 The term Res Ipsa Loquitur comes from the Latin language and it means that ‘the
things itself speaks’. In common language, it can be understood by the phrase “ the
things speaks for itself”. It is applied where it is difficult to find who is negligent in
the case. But it is well established (prima facie) that someone must be negligent in
the case. When any train crashes, a bridge collapses or when any automobile is
found inside the hotel lobby then it is very certain that it must be due to someone’s
negligence. But when we do not have any conclusive evidence regarding who was
actually negligent then the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is applied. Here in the
above cases, the crash of the train must be due to the conductor who fell asleep
during the journey of the train. It is decided by the fact that who is the person/
CONTD.. authority etc. in control at the time of the accident.
 The principle of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence to determine the
responsibility/onus of proof in actions related to negligence. This principle is
applicable only when the nature of the accident and the circumstances related to the
case would lead to the belief that in the absence of negligence the accident would
not have occurred and the thing which caused the injury must be under the
management and control of the wrongdoer.
  Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, 2012
 In the very famous case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan the principle/doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur was discussed in detail. This is the case of an appeal against
the judgment of the High Court of Jaipur Bench. The facts of the case were as
follows:

 “Sukhdeep Singh was going to attend the marriage of his brother along with his
family. They were going in two jeeps and a Maruti car. On their way, they met with
an accident with a bus that was coming from the opposite direction at a very high
speed. Due to this eight-person died on the spot. According to one of the
witnesses, the bus was driven by the accused Ravi Kapur and after the accident,
he ran away from the spot. The trial court held that the prosecution was not able
to prove the liability of Ram Kapur and hence he was acquitted by the trial court.
CASE LAW However, the decision of the High Court comes against the trial court and its
decision was backed by the reasoning which includes the principle of res ipsa
loquitur, negligence, reasonable care.”

 The principle of res ipsa loquitur serves two purposes – it establishes the
negligence on the part of the accused party and secondly, it is applied in the
cases where the claimant is able to prove that there is an accident but is not able
to prove how the accident occurred. The High Court by applying the principle of
res ipsa loquitur found Ram Kapur liable under Section 304A of the IPC. The same
case when went to the Supreme Court the court held that the decision of the High
Court was right and the appellant was held liable ultimately.
 MEDICAL  JUGGAN KHAN vs STATE OF MP.
 RAM NIVAS V STATE OF UP.
TREATMENT
  Ramva Vs. Emperor
 Thompson's case.
 Juggankhan case:
 De Souza Vs. State:
 A compounder prepared a mixture out of a deadly poison
CASE LAWS thinking that it was a mixture to cure fever. Seven persons out
of eight whom he gave the medicine died of poisoning. The
compounder was guilty of causing death by rash and negligent
act.
 State of K a r n a t a k a vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar
( C O 2002 SC 261):
  According to this Section, a person who is held liable for
causing the death by negligence can be punished for the
two-year jail or can be fined for the same or can be
punished by both. The term of imprisonment depends on
the gravity of the crime and imprisonment can be
PUNISHMEN rigorous in nature or can be simple in nature. Its nature is
also defined by the gravity of the crime and it varies
T from situation to situation as it depends on the situation.
It is a cognizable offense and has been put in the
category of a heinous crime. Here the police officer can
arrest the accused without a warrant. It is a bailable
offense.
  Dowry death
 This is a crime that is committed against a lady. Dowry is
a crime that has existed in Indian civilization for hundreds
of years, and despite several efforts, this evil has not
been totally abolished. The word ‘dowry’ under Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code has the same meaning as
in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961, which
defines the word as any property or valuable security

304B given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly

1. by one party to a marriage to the other party to a
marriage; or
2. by the parents of either party to a marriage, or by any
other person to either party to the marriage; or
3. by any other person to either party to the marriage,
 at or before, or any time after (on three occasions) the
marriage in connection with the said parties’ marriage.
  In the case of Kamesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar (2005), the
Supreme Court stated the key ingredients of dowry death
(Section 304B, IPC) as follows:
• A woman’s death should be caused by burns, physical injuries, or
some other unusual event.
• Her husband or a relative of her husband must have treated her
cruelly or harassed her.

CASE LAW • She should have died during the first seven years of her marriage
• Such cruelty or harassment should be in response to or in
conjunction with a dowry demand.
• It must be proven that the lady was subjected to such brutality or
harassment shortly before her death.
 PadMaben ShamalbhalPatel Vs. State:
 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
 . Gurucharan Kumar and another Vs. State of Rajasthan:
 The Supreme Court held that Mrs. Geetu, a highly emotional
person might have committed suicide, as she was unable to
adiust herself in the change surroundings of her matrimonial
home, and there was no evidence that she was subjected to
cruelty.
 Sec. 498-A deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of
husband. Sec. 304-B has 'cruelty' as one of its essentials and
thus both the Sections 498-A and 304-B. have cruelty in
common.
 Vadde ram rao vs State of AP.
 Brijpal vs prem chand.
Difference  MURDER and DOWRY DEATH.
  ABETMENT OF SUICIDE OF CHILD OR INSANE
PERSON
 - (Sec. 305)
 If any person abets the suicide of a n y person under years
of age, insane person, delirious p e r s o n , idiot 18 or any
person under intoxication, then he is punishable with
CONTD.. death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment upto 10
vears and also fine.
 State o f Punjab Vs. Jabal Singh: The husband was
extremely cruel to his wife and used. to beat her and
harass her for more dowry. The wife ultimately set herself
and her three chidren on fire. As the husband created the
atmosphere for herdeath, he was guilty of abetment.
  Sanju @Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh-(CDJ2 0 0 2 SC 371):
 The Supreme Court held that for abetment to suicide,
presence of mens rea is the necessary factor of
instigation. The words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of
CASE LAW. the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea.
The fact that the deceased committed suiciade on27th
July, 1998 would itself clearly point o u t t h a t it 1s not
the direct result of the quarrel that took place on 25th
July, 1998.
  If the offence of 'attempt to murder' si committed by a life convict and
if hurt is caused, he is punished with death.
 Sec. 307 deals with attempt to murder. Attempt consists of cases which
have not succeeded due t circumstances not in the control of a person.
 An attempt to commit murder consists in doing an act with such
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if death is
caused by such act, he would be guilty of murder (Sec. 307).
 A, with intention to kill Z , buys a gun, loads it and Though death is
ATTEMPT not caused by his shooting & Z escapes with a wound, A is guilty of
the offence of attempt to murder.
 Vasudel Gogie Vs. Bombay: The accused fired two point blank shots
at the acting Governor of Bombay, b u t the bullet did not take cffect
due to some defect in the ammunition. T h e offender was guilty of
'attempt to murder'
  Tulsha VS. R:
 The accused administered a poisonous herb
(dhatura) to three members of her lamily with the

CASE LAW knowledge that death shall be caused. Though the

family members did not die, she was guilty of
attempt to murder.
 Abdul Rahaman's Case:
 ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA
(Constitutional validy o f Sec. 309)
 I any person atempts ot commit suicide and does
any act towards the commission of such offence,
then he is punishable with simple imprisonment
upto one year or fine.
 In every case of attempt to suicide the prosecution
must prove that, the act of accused amounted to
attempt but the desired result didn’t occur
  Sec. 310:
 A thug is a person who has been habitually associated
with the persons:
 1. For committing robbery by means o , or accompanied
THUG  with murder or For committing child stealing by means
of or accompanied with murder.
 Sec. 311: The punishment for being a thug is
imprisonment for Ife and fine.