RESEARCH PROJECT

on

A Study of the exceptions to section 300 with

relevant case laws

Submitted to

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

AURANGABAD

Submitted by
DEVESH SHUKLA

B.B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)

Semester3RD Roll No.

2022/BBALLB/75

Paper: Criminal Law

Under the guidance of

Ms. Amruta Chavan

Teaching Assistant of
Law

Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad

September, 2023

1
 DECLARATION

This declaration is made at Bangalore that, this project is prepared and drafted by me, Devesh
Shukla .

It contains the project work that was assigned to me during my 3rd Semester period, and
successfully accomplished from my side. This project is a sincere attempt at compilation of the
aforementioned work.

This has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, to any other Law University or affiliated
Institute under which any University is recognized by the Bar Council of India, for the award of
any other law degree or diploma, within the territory of India.

DEVESH SHUKLA

(22Bballb75@mnlua.ac.in)

2
 INDEX

Sr. No Chapter Pg. No

1 Cover Page 1

2 Declaration 2

3 Index 3

4 Abstract 4

5 Introduction 5

6 7

7 12

8 Conclusion 18

9 Bibliography 19

3
 ABSTRACT

This study delves into the exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
which defines the circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder.
The exceptions provide a legal framework to differentiate between culpable homicide
amounting to murder and those falling within the realm of justifiable or excusable
actions. By examining relevant case laws and legal provisions, this research aims to
elucidate the nuances of these exceptions, shedding light on their application,
interpretation, and implications within the Indian legal system. The study also
underscores the significance of a comprehensive understanding of these exceptions in
ensuring justice and fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

4
 INTRODUCTION

Significance of the study:

Murder is a heinous offence which is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Murder
is defined in Section 300 where culpable homicide amounts to murder. Culpable
homicide Section 299 is genus and murder are its species. It is necessary that all
murder is a culpable homicide but not necessary that all culpable homicide is a
murder. The punishment for the murder is defined in Section 302. There are certain
exceptions provided in Section 300 which state the case of culpable homicide which
does not amount to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal
Code.

Objectives of the study:

1. Understand the what bigamy and mock marriages are.

2. Understand the remedies available in India.

Legal Relevance:

Mock marriages and bigamy are offences under the Indian Penal Code. The
punishment for these offences is very serious; seven or ten years of imprisonment
with fine. There have been several major cases in both, High Courts and the Supreme
Court, in which several factors of these offenceshave been explained.

Research Questions:

1. What is mock marriage?

2. What is bigamy?
3. What is the difference between mock marriage and
bigamy?

5
 Research Methodology:

 Approach to Research: In this project doctrinal research was involved. Doctrinal

Research is research in which secondary sources are used and materials are collected
from libraries, journals, articles and websites.
 Types of Research: Explanatory type of research was used in this project, because
the project
topic was not relatively new and unheard of and also because various concepts were
needed tobe explained.
 Sources of Data collection: Secondary source of data collection was used which
involves
collection of data from books, articles, websites, etc. No surveys or case studies were
conducted.

Scope:

The scope of this project extends to the definition of mock marriage and bigamy.
This project willalso include various judgements given by the Supreme Court of
India.

6
Section 300- says that Culpable Homicide amount to murder

Culpable Homicide is defined under Sec. 299 and which says that if any person
causes death by doing an act and his intention was involved in causing death or bodily
injury as is likely to cause death or he has knowledge if he did something, he is likely
to cause death the person commits the offense of Culpable Homicide.

From both of the definitions that all murders are Culpable Homicide but it is not
necessary all Culpable Homicide is murder.

And because of this, these are the most confusing terms in IPC. according to Sir
James Stephen, these two concepts i.e.,

Murder and Culpable Homicide are the weakest part of the IPC because

1. They both defined closely

2. It’s difficult to differentiate between both of them
3. As the causing death is common in both of them.

7
 Distinction between Section 493 and 496-
Section 300 Section 299

 1. b  Cohabitation or having sexual

intercourse is not required in the
offence under Section 496. It
simply
requires a fraud marriage
ceremony.

 An offence under Section 493  An offence under Section 496 may be

may be specifically committed
committed by a man or a woman
by man only.
both.

8
 Exception Under Section 300 Of IPC

There are certain exceptions to the offence of murder under Section 300 of IPC.
According to this provision murder can be reduced to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 IPC and not under Section
302 IPC.
So, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 recognize 5 exceptions to the offense of murder and
they are:

1-Grave and sudden provocation

2-Private defence
3-Exercise of legal power
4-Predemination in a sudden fight
5-Consent

Exception 1. Grave and sudden provocation:

By the sudden and grave provocation if a person loses his self-control and because of
this, he causes the death of another person who gave the provocation or causes the
death of another person by mistake or accident.

Essentials conditions are:

1-Most important that the intention of the accused should not be Malafide.
2-Provocation must be sudden and grave
3-The accused should be provoked by the deceased
4-Accused lose his self-control or controlling power.
5-And the accused committed the murder before he cools down.

But it’s very much important to prove that the provocation was given by the person
that must be grave and sudden.
And for this, the question arose in front of the court whether the grave and sudden
provocation is enough to prevent the offense from amounting to murder?
So, here Supreme Court give Reasonable man’s test in the case of

9
K.M. Nanavati Hospital v. State of Maharashtra

The court observed and laid down that:

1. Gestures and words are like, that they give sudden and grave
provocation.
2. For the purpose of determining, the grave, and sudden provocation a test
is established under which is called a reasonable man’s test that whether
any reasonable man having the same capacity and belonging to the same
class of society in which the accused was placed would be so provoked to
lose his self-control.
3. The mental background of the previous act of the victim is to be taken
into consideration whether the act was sufficient to cause sudden and
grave provocation.
4. The fatal blow on the person giving a sudden and grave provocation
should be immediately done before him to calm down.

Mahmood v. State

The certain essentials need to be fulfilled in order to come under the ambit of the
section:

1. The provocation must be sudden: means that should be unexpected and

it should not be planned beforehand and moreover, the time between
homicide and provocation must be short.
2. The provocation must be grave: a statement given by the accused that
he was provoked will not be accepted in the court. And for this, the court
goes for a reasonable test to check out whether the provocation was grave
or not.
3. Losing self-control: and if from both of the provocation court is satisfied
then the court will assume that the person loses his self-control

10
There are some provisos of exceptions-1 which is said to be
limitations:

Firstly: that the provocation is not voluntarily by the offender for

killing or harm to any person.

Secondly: that the provocation should not be done in obedience to

the law or by the public servant while lawful exercising.

Thirdly: that the provocation should not be done in the right of

private defence.

Illustrations:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

11
 Exception 2: Private defense

It’s not murder if the offender done in good faith of the right of private
defense of person or property in which he exceeds the power and thus
causing the death of the person and against whom is exercising his
right without any knowledge or intentions. But if the exceed his right
of private defense and that will be intentionally then he will be
amounting to murder. If the defense is unintentional.

Essentials ingredients are:

1. The act must be done in private defense in the context of

person or property.
2. It should be bonafide or good faith
3. The act should be like that the person exceeds his right
given by law.

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 believes in good faith that he can be no other means
prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not
committed murder, but an only culpable homicide.

In the case of Ranbir Singh & Or’s v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The court held that the burden of proof is on the accused. Such a
burden can be reduced by establishing either on the basis of
cross-examination or by abducing’s the defense evidence.
Lachhmi Koheri v. State of Bihar (AIR 1960 Pat 62, 1960 CriLJ
271)

Fact: the hawaldar went in civil costume to arrest the appellant and
confronted him. Then Appellant take out of his chura and stabbed in
Hwaldar’s arm’s not once, many times he stabbed on his arms.
therefore, Hawaldar dies.

12
Held: The Supreme Court held that the appellant takes private
defense but the intention of causing more harm is not necessary for
his defense. And therefore, the appellant case did not under this
section and he held liable for the murder not for culpable homicide.

Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (16 May, 2008)

In this, the court held that if the person wants to take the benefit
of this exception, he has to prove that he had done under in
private defense. But also, the court has the power that they can
reject the plea if the person harms the other person that was not
necessary and causing the death.

13
 Exception 3: Exercise in Legal Power

Culpable homicide, not murder if the public servant or aiding a public

servant does his work for the advancement of public justice and
exceeds his power given by law and in a bonafide manner but without
the ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.

Example: the police want to arrest the person and if that person
stabbed or abscond him and because of this police shoot that person.
Then in this case police were not liable for the murder.

In Dakhi Singh v. State (1955 CriLJ 905)

Facts: the police officer while discharging his duty fire another person
in the place of a thief who was trying to run.

In this, the court held that the police officer has bonafide
intention and he get benefit under this section.

14
 Exception 4: Premeditation in a sudden fight

It means that the fight was unexpected or premeditated. No intention

from both of the parties to kill or to cause the death of the person. And
moreover, it doesn’t matter which party has first assaulted or who has
offered a provocation.

Essentials ingredients are:

1. The fight must between the accused and the person who is
killed
2. The people involved in a sudden fight
3. In the heat of passion of a sudden quarrel
4. The offender doesn’t take any unfair advantage
5. The offender doesn’t act in a cruel or unusual manner

This was decided in the case of Surendra Kumar v. Union Territory,

Chandigarh

15
 Exception 5: consent

It’s not murder when the person gives consent to his/her own death.

Important points to be remember

1. Being above the age of eighteen years

2. Consent is given by the deceased
3. It should be free and voluntarily

Illustration: A instigate B for the suicide who is under age and he is

incapable of given his consent and because of this A is liable for
Murder.

Dashrath Paswan v. State of Bihar (19 January 2012)

Facts: the accused was in class 10th and he failed in the exam and
because of this reason he wants to end his life and therefore he told
his wife whose age is 19 years old. And he told his decision to his wife.
She told him first to kill herself and then kill himself and accused kill
her wife but before he kills himself, he was arrested by the police.

The court held that the deceased did not give her consent under
the misconception and therefore be entitled to take the benefit
under this exception.

16
17
 CONCLUSION

So, these are the Exception of section 300 in which if someone cause
injury or death to another person then he will get the benefit under
these exceptions. But the person has to fulfill all the important points
which are described under this Section. There is a say that there is
always an exception to everything. And this section gives protection to
the accused, if he has done any act under the private defence, sudden
fight, consent, etc then the accused can take the benefits of these
sections. But the court has a duty that he will take the cases very
seriously and read all the important points and facts of the case.

18
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] https://www.advocatehof.com

121 https://www.advocatekhoj.com

131 1962 SCR Sup (1) 567

141 AIR 1961 A 538 https://www.advocatekhoj.com

[5] https://www.advocatekho.com

[6] https://www.advocarelchor cent

19