REG

V.

GOVINDA

In India the criminal law is governed by the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Chapter 16 of the Code deals with "Offences Affecting the Human Body." The most important provision of the Chapter is Section 299 and Section 300. The former defines culpable homicide while the latter defines murder. The language of these provisions suggests that there is no difference between Section 299 and Section 300. The similarity of the language of these provisions is the reason of conundrum. However, this confusion between culpable homicide and murder has been put to rest by the Bombay High Court in the case of Reg v. Govinda, wherein the sentence of accused has been transported to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he was sentenced for 7 years. The present case is pioneer in the field of distinction between Section 299 and Section 300. The case is further discussed in detail. Citation (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342 Ø Bench Justice Melvill, Justice Kemball and Justice N Haridas Ø Facts of the case In the present case the prisoner, a young man of 18 years kicked his wife (a girl of 15 years) and struck her several times with his fist on the back. These blows seem to have caused her no serious injury. However, she fell on the ground and through evidences it appeared that prisoner put his knee on her chest and gave blow to her face twice or thrice. These blows were made with the closed fist which were violent in nature and affected her left eye which caused contusion and discoloration of the same. The girl's skull was not fractured however the blows caused an extravasation of blood on the brain and the girl died in consequence either on the spot or very shortly afterwards. The Sessions Judge charged the accused with the murder. Hence the present appeal. Ø Issue 1) Whether accused committed the murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder? 2) Whether there is a difference between Section 299 and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Ø Judgment: The Court convicted the accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and transported his sentence to 7years. The court laid down the difference between Section 299 and 300 and held that intention is the common factor of differentiation between the two Sections. Ø Analysis The Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines culpable homicide as "Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide." The Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines murder as "Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or (Secondly) : If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or (Thirdly) : If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in-flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or (Fourthly) : If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." From the above provision the Justices have jotted down the points of difference between Section 299 and Section 300. The ratio decidendii of the case is as follows: 1) "Doing an act with the intention of causing death" under Section 299 and " Act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death" under Section 300 : In this case court has held that both the provisions deal with intention and there cannot be any difference of the gravity of intention used in both the provisions. However, it could be derived that Section 299 is the genus and Section 300 is species. In other words, to constitute an offence of murder, first it has to be a culpable homicide. Furthermore, in both the cases if the death is caused by an act with the intention of causing death then the accused will be punished under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2) "The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death" under Section 299 and " If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in-flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" under Section 300(Thirdly): The point of difference between these clauses is the gravity. In the former clause the aggrieved party has to prove that accused had intention to cause bodily injury and with expert opinion it will be proved that whether such bodily injury was likely to cause death or not. The offender will be punishable under Section 304 Part II which states that "causing such bodily injury which is likely to cause death is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable with a term which may extend to 10year or fine or both." However, according to Section 300 (thirdly) the gravity of such injury has been increased. It states that bodily injury was caused with such an intention that in ordinary course it would amount to death of a person and if a person survives such injury, it would be an exception. Herein the intention for increased gravity of bodily injury has been dealt and hence punishable under Section 302. 3) "With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death" under Section 299 and "If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused" under Section 300 (Secondly): The aforementioned clause of Section 299 deals with the least degree of mens rea. It implies that death is caused by an act wherein the offender had the knowledge that it might cause death. Herein, the gravity of mens rea was less and hence amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II. In the latter clause i.e. Section 300 (secondly), the provision imputes two kinds of mens rea i.e. intention of causing bodily injury and the knowledge that such injury would cause death of a person. According to Section 300 (secondly), the offender had the knowledge of vulnerability of accused and the bodily of injury was caused with such an intention. The point of difference between is gravity of an offence. The Section 300 is punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In all the above cases, the basic difference between Section 299 and 300 is the gravity of mens rea. The test to determine mens rea in each case is the reasonability of a person i.e. what would the reasonable person does in such situations. In the present case Justice Melvill laid down the above point of differences and held that, based on the evidences, there was an absence of intention to cause death, furthermore as per medical jurisprudence the bodily injuries were not of a nature which would in ordinary circumstances cause death of a person. However, the Judges imputed knowledge that such bodily injuries might result into death. Therefore, the sentence of accused was transported to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and awarded imprisonment of 7years. The present case is landmark regarding the distinction between Section 299 and Section 300.