From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is clear that the knife used in the

commission of the crime had not been recovered. Dimension, shape, size and type
of the knife have also not been given by any of the witnesses nor have any of them
deposed that the same was a deadly weapon.

The rule of determination of intention has been elaborately laid down in the case of Pulicherla
Nargaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh.
It considered elements like nature of the weapon used, whether the weapon was carried by the
accused or was picked up on the spot, whether the blow was aimed at a vital part of the body, the
amount of force employed in causing injury, whether the act was in course of sudden quarrel or
sudden fight or free for all. Whether the incident occurred by chance or whether there was any
pre- meditation., whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger,
whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so the cause of such provocation,
whether it was in the heat of passion, whether the person inflicting the injury has taken due
advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner, whether the accused dealt a single blow or
several blows.

2006] AIR 3010 (SC)

In Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1968 SC 1390], there was a quarrel
between the accused and the deceased and the accused whipped out a knife and stabbed the
accused on the chest near the shoulder.
The stab injury was not on a vital pari of the chest, but since the knife cut the artery inside, it
resulted in death. In this case, the Supreme Court held that there was no proof that the injury
caused was the injury intended, as but for the severing of the artery, death might not have
occurred. It was held that this case would not fall under clause (3) of Section 300. Accordingly
the accused was convicted under Section 304 IPC.

In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465], it was held that, in the absence of any
circumstances to show that the injury was caused accidentally or unintentionally, the
presumption would be that the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injury and the
conviction was upheld. The Supreme Court, further laid down in order to bring a case within
clause (3) of Section 300, the prosecution must prove the following:
i) First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
ii) Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; it is purely objective investigation;
iii) Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,
that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was
intended;

(2009) 15 SCC 635

In Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana after scanning all the previous decisions where the
death was caused by a single blow, this Court indicated, though not exhaustively, a few factors to
be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence.
To quote: 23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before
awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and
not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective.
The relevant factors are as under:
(a) Motive or previous enmity;
(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;
(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;
(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;
(g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;
(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the
blow was inflicted;
(i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;

In Jagriti Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, it was held that the expressions
intention and knowledge postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude. It
was further held that when and if there is intent and knowledge, then the same
would be a case under first part of Section 304 and if it is only a case of knowledge
and not intention to cause murder by bodily injury, then the same would be a case
of second part of Section 304.
To quote:
Section 299 and Section 300 IPC deal with the definition of culpable homicide
and murder respectively.
Section 299 defines culpable homicide as the act of causing death:
(i)
(ii)

with the intention of causing death, or

with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,

(iii)

or
with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.

A bare reading of the section makes it crystal clear that the first and the second
clauses of the section refer to intention apart from the knowledge and the third
clause refers to knowledge alone and not intention.
Both the expressions intent and knowledge postulate the existence of a positive
mental attitude which is of different degrees. The mental element in culpable
homicide i.e. mental attitude towards the consequences of conduct is one of
intention and knowledge. If that is caused in any of the aforesaid three
circumstances, the offence of culpable homicide is said to have been committed
Section 300 IPC, however, deals with murder although there is no clear definition of
murder provided in Section 300 IPC. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that
culpable homicide is the genus and murder is species and that all murders are
culpable homicide but not vice versa
Section 300 IPC further provides for the exceptions which will constitute culpable
homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304. When and if
there is intent and knowledge, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I
and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and
bodily injury, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part II. The aforesaid
distinction between an act amounting to murder and an act not amounting to
murder has been brought out in the numerous decisions of this Court.

AIR 1992 SC 559

In Suraj Mal v. State of Punjab, the dying declaration of the deceased stated that it was only during
the quarrel that ensued between the deceased and the appellant, that the appellant stabbed the
deceased once with a knife. As the appellant acted without premeditation in the heat of passion upon
a sudden quarrel, the court allowing the appeal, held that since Exception 4 of Section 300 is
attracted to the facts of this case, the offence is punishable under Section 304 but not under Section
302, IPC.
AIR 1989 SC 1094
n Suririder Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarth, the appellant had an argument with the
deceased and there was heated exchange and the appellant got enraged, went into the kitchen and

returned with a knife with which he inflicted blows on the deceased and the deceased collapsed on
the floor and later died. Considering the facts that there was no ill-will between the parties, the court
held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300. The accused was
convicted under Section 304.

THE ACCUSEDS ACTIONS WERE AN ACCIDENT

Under Sec 80, IPC, a criminal act which is an accident is not punishable as it is
excuses the accused from punishment due to a lack of mens rea, and it for the
33

prosecution to prove requisite intention or knowledge in cases of murder . The word

34

accident is something that happens unexpectedly or happens unintentionally . The

35

purely accidental result of a mans voluntary conduct will not be imputed to him if i.

He had no criminal intention or knowledge

ii.

His conduct was lawful

iii.

His consequences were purely lawful

The amount of caution that is to be followed under this section is not that which is of
the highest order, but that which is a reasonable precaution when seeing the facts of
36

each case . In the case at hand it could be seen that

While exercising his private defence it can be argued that Accused had
37

accidently ended Brij Gopals death unintentionally .

It can be inferred from the statements of Accused that his alleged criminal
actions were an accidental one and he had no mens rea to commit such a
38

crime , and without intent a conviction cannot be made against the accused.