Section 300 of Indian Penal Code with case laws

300. Murder

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 inflicted 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.

Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.

(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.

(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword- cut or club- wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.

(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.

Exception 1.- When culpable homicide is not murder.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-

(First) - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

(Secondly) - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

(Thirdly) - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation.- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Illustrations

(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.

(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.

(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.

(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.

(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.

Exception 2.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Illustration Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide. Exception 3.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill- will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation.- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

Exception 5.- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.

300 IPC Case Laws (Supreme Court and High Courts)

State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar 1986 Cr. LJ 155 (SC)

Ganga Singh (1873) 5 NWP 44

R. Venkalu AIR 1956 SC 171

Nga Dwe (1904) 1 Cr. LJ 909

State of Karnataka v. Gangadharaih 1997 Cr. LJ 4068 (SC)

M. Suseela v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 Cr. L.J. 4390(SC)

Gabbar Pandey (1927) 7 Pat. 638

Gaurishankar (1918) 40 All. 360

Tulsa (1897) 20 All. 143

Bhagava (1916) 12 Bom. LR 54

Ranjiha (1947) 49 PLR 305

Karu Marik v. State of Bihar 2001 Cri. L.J. 2615 (SC)

Bhola Bind (1943) 22 Pat. 607

Brij Bhukhan Air 1957 SC 474

Anda AIR 1957 SC 148

State of UP v. Virendra Prasad 2004 Cri LJ 1373 (SC)

Babulal Biharilal AIR 1943 Nag 931

Rajwant Singh AIR 1966 SC 1874

Sunnumuduli (1946) 25 Pat 355

Dil Mohammad (1941) 21 Pat 250

Garasia Rajendra sinh Jethubhai v. State of Gujarat 1979 Cri. L. J. (NOC) 68 (Guj)

Dasser Bhooyan (1867) 8 WR (Cr) 71

Nga Khan AIR 1921 LB4

Indar Singh Bagga Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 439

Charan Singh v. State of Punjab, and Lakha Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 Cri. LJ 647 (SC)

Prakash Hiraman Hingane v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 2211

Ramashraya and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Cri. LJ 1452 (SC)

Lal Bihari Lal v. Emperor AIR 1946 Nag. 120

Judagi Mallah (1929) 8 Pat 911

State of MP v. Ram Prasad AIR 1968 SC 881

Nga Ba Tu AIR (1921) LB 26

Bharat (1920) 23 Cr. L.J. 179

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 Cr. L.J. 852 SC

Gorachand Gopee 5 WR 45 (FB)

Emperor v. Dhirajia AIR 1940 All. 486

Kanhai (1912) 11 ALJR 752

Gyarsibai 1953 Cr LJ 588

Sahaj Ram V. State of Haryana 1983 Cr. LJ 588

Gobadur Bhooyan (1870) 13 WR (Cr.) 55

Gandura Nayoko (1882) 1 Weir 305

Munniswami v. Emperor 1937 MWN 93

Minai w/o Hudkia v. Emperor AIR 1938 Nag 318

Melvill J In R.V. Govinda (1876) 1 Bom 342

Reg. V. Gorachand Gope 5 WR (Cr) 45 Peacock CJ

Reg. v. Govinda (1876) 1 Bom 342 per Melvill. J.

Per Peacock C.J. in Gorachand Gopee (1866) 5 WR (Cr) 45 (FB)

Barkatulla (1887) PR No. 32 of 1887

Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka Per Straight, J. in Idu Beg. (1881) 3 All. 776

Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka 2003 Cri. L J 4458 (SC)

Sabjit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1983 Cri LJ 961 SC

State of UP v.l Satish Chandra and Others 1985 Cri. L. J. 1921

Siddique v. State of UP AIR 1999 SC 1690

State of UP V. Kapildeo Singh AIR 1999 SC 1783

State of Haryana v. Bhagirathi 199 Cri L J 2898 (SC)

State of Haryana v. Tek Singh 1999 Cri LJ 2577 (SC)

Ramachandra Obdar v. State of Bihar 1999 Cr. L J 1449 (SC)

State of Rajasthan v. Major Singh 1999 Cr. L. J 1631 (SC)

Mathappa Gounda AIR 1954 Mad 538

Mangal AIR 1925 Nag 37

Amar Singh AIR 1956 MB 107

Kanhailal AIR 1952 Bhopal 21

K M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605

Madhavan v. State of Kerala 1966 Ker LT 112

Khairati ram AIR 1953 Punj 241Lochan (1886) 8 All 635

Rajendra Rai v. State of Bihar 1999 Cr. L. J. 1448 (SC)

State of UP v. Lakhmi AIR 1998 SC 1007

Kundarapu (1962) 1 Cr LJ 261

Jamaluddin AIR 1955 Mad 1227

Ram Bilas Yadav v. State of Bihar 2002 Cri LJ 978 (SC)

Ram Avtar v. State of UP 2003 Cri LJ 480 (SC)

Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat 2003 Cri. LJ 3723 (SC)

Ghapoo Yadav v. State of MP 2003 Cri LJ 1536 (SC)

Ram Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1190

Bagdi Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 Cri. L.J. 632 (SC)

Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2004 Cri LJ 4660 (SC)

Kalpana Mazumdar v. State of Orissa 2002 Cri LJ 3756 (SC)

Khima Vikamshi v. State of Gujarat 2003 Cri. L J. 2025 (SC)

Sarabjit Singh and Others v. State of UP 1983 Cri Lj 961 (SC)

Birbhan Singh v. State of UP 1985 Cri. LJ 1635(SC)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana 2003 Cri LJ 3552 (SC)

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana 2002 Cri LJ 4688 (SC)

Vikas v. State of Rajasthan 2002 Cri LJ 3760 (SC)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar 1999 Cri LJ 599 (SC)

State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh 2002 Cri LJ 1503 (SC)

Din Dayal v. Raj Kumar Alias Raju and others 1999 Cri LJ 467 (SC)

Daljeet Singh v. state of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 454 (SC)

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 463 (SC)

Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 1132 (SC)

Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 267 (SC)

Dev v. State of Rajasthan 1999 Cri LJ 265 (SC)

Jinat Mian v. State of Assam AIR 1998 SC 533

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1999 Cri LJ 1138 (SC)

State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh 2004 Cri LJ 931 (SC)

State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Muniappan AIR 1998 SC 504

Ram Kumar Madhusudan Pathak v. State of Gujarat AIR 1998 SC 2732

Lichhama Devi v. State of Rajasthan 1988 Cri. LJ 1812 (SC)

Lichhamdadevi v. State of Rajasthan 1988 Cri LJ 1812 (SC)

Vishwanath Shantha Nallapa Dhule v. State of Karnataka AIR 1998 SC 246

Ali Ahmed v. STate of UP AIR 1998 SC 1232

Gujjan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1998 SC 2417

Pal Singh v. State of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 3962 (SC)

Pal Singh v. State of Punjah 1999 Cri LJ 3962 (SC)

Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav v. State of Karnataka 2003 Cri LJ 3542 (SC)

Nallabothu Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 Cri LJ 4081 (SC)

Sunil Kumar v. State Government of NCT of Delhi 2004 Cri LJ 819 (SC)

Karnam Ram Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 Cri LJ 4217 (SC)

Mahantappa v. State of Karnataka 1999 Cri LJ 450 (SC)

Kishori v. State of Delhi 1999 Cri LJ 584 (SC)

Rameshwar Pandey v. State of Bihar 2004 Cri LJ 1407 (SC)

State of Karnataka v. David Razario 2002 Cri LJ 4127 (SC)

Shiv Ram v. State of UP 1998 Cri LJ 76 (SC)

Mahendra Nath Das v. State of Assam AIR 1999 SC 1926

Jai Kumar v. State of MP AIR 1999 SC 1860

Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi 2002 Cri LJ 1844 (SC)

Om Prakash v. State of Haryana 1999 Cri 2044 (SC)

State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar 2002 Cri LJ 218 (SC)

Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana 1999 Cri LJ 1836 (SC)

Ram Anup Singh and others v. State of Bihar 2002 Cri LJ 3927 (SC)

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Gujarat 2002 Cri LJ 2632 (SC)

Suresh v. State of UP 2001 Cri LJ 1462 (SC)

Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand 2004 Cri LJ 658 (SC)

State of UP v.l Shri Krishan 2005 Cri LJ 892 (SC)

Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2001 Cri LJ 725 (SC)

Om Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal 2003 Cri LJ 483 (SC)

Hukumchand v. State of Haryana 2003 Cri LJ 57 (SC)

State of UP v. Satish 2004 Cri LJ 1428 (SC)

Amit v. State of Maharashtra 2003 Cri LJ 3873 (SC)

Surendra Pal Shivbalak Pal v. State of Gujarat 2004 Cri LJ 4642 (SC)

State of Punjab v. Gurmej Singh 2002 Crio LJ 3741 (SC)

Dayanidhi Bisoe v. State of Orissa 2003 Cri LJ 3697 (SC)

Subhash Ram Kumar Baid v. State of Maharashtra 2003 Cri LJ 443 (SC)

Union of India v. Devendra Nath Rai 2005 Cr LJ 967 (SC)