Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 10

Exceptions to Offence of Murder under Section 300 IPC, which could mitigate it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder:

Exception I – Grave and Sudden Provocation as mitigation

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.

Essentials – The following conditions must be complied with in order to invoke the benefits of this clause:-

1. The deceased must have given provocation to the accused.
2. The provocation must be grave.
3. The provocation must be sudden.
4. The offender, by reason of the said provocation, should have been deprived of his power of self-control.
5. The accused killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-control.
6. The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or that of any other person by mistake or accident.

Exception II – Exceeding the Right of Private Defence

Culpable homicide is not murder if the power, 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.

Exception III – Public servants exceeding powers

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 IV — Sudden Fight

This exception applies to cases wherein death is caused in a sudden fight without premeditation in the heat of passion in a sudden quarrel; so long as the fight is unpremeditated and sudden, the accused, irrespective of his conduct before the quarrel, earns the mitigation provided for in Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC.  Subject to the condition that he did not in the course of fight take undue advantage of or act in a cruel or unusual manner.

Exception V – Consent

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 free and voluntary consent.

1. Ram came home from work and found that his neighbor Sunil was molesting his 8 years old daughter. He was so shocked and angry that he took an axe and went towards Sunil to kill him. Seeing him, Sunil pushed him and ran for his life.  Ram ran behind Sunil with the axe and found him 6 hours later hiding behind a bus.  Ram caught him and killed him with his axe.
Decide whether the exception of Grave and sudden provocation will apply or not.

(a) Yes, because Sunil’s act could be considered as a heinous crime and was grave in nature.
(b) Yes, because seeing his daughter getting molested, the father was filled with rage and anger.
(c) No, because the act of killing Sunil was not sudden.
(d) Yes, because the act of Sunil deserves to be punished in this manner.

2. Raj was sleeping in his house when a thief entered his house. Due to the noise, Raj woke up and caught the thief.  The thief tried to threaten Raj with a baseball bat kept there and started to escape from the house.  Raj, in order to prevent the thief from escaping, took out his pistol from the shelf and fired at him, thus killing him. Will he be sued for murder or any exception can be granted?
(a) No, because the thief was threatening Raj and could have harmed him, therefore Raj acted in private defence.
(b) Yes, because killing is not a justified punishment for stealing.
(c) Yes, because Raj used more power than was necessarily required for private defence.
(d) No, because the thief committed mistake and should have been punished.

3. X was a policeman who was trying to catch a dangerous armed culprit, who was hiding in a factory. Unaware of this, the watchman of the factory who was taking round suddenly appeared in front of the policeman holding his gun.  As it was dark, “X” couldn’t see properly and shot him dead. Will he be charged with murder?
(a) Yes, because it was because of his negligence that the watchman got killed.
(b) No, because he fired in discharge of his duty, thinking him to be the armed culprit.
(c) No, because it was an accident which took place because it was dark.
(d) Yes, because the policeman should have given warning before firing bullet.

4. Mukesh and Nitin had a conflict due to which they had physically fought many times before. Mukesh wanted to end this chapter so he called Nitin and asked to meet him in person. He carried with him a knife.  Soon their conversation got heated up and both got involved in a physical fight.  Finding the right time, Mukesh stabbed Nitin with his knife many times. Will any of the exception apply here?

(a) Yes, the exception of grave and sudden provocation will be applicable as Mukesh killed Nitin in the heat of the moment.
(b) No, because the exception of sudden fight cannot be applied as it was planned by Mukesh beforehand and was executed in a cruel manner.
(c) No, because he killed Nitin out of personal conflict and rage.
(d) Yes, because he acted in self defence against Nitin.

Answer Key & Solutions

1. Answer: C
   Sol. In case of grave and sudden provocation, the act committed should be a sudden reaction to the situation, whereas in this situation the act was committed after a long gap of time.
   
2. Answer: C
   Sol. In case of private defence, the force used should be adequate and necessary without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
   
3. Answer: B
   Sol. 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.
   
4. Answer: B
   Sol. The exception of sudden fight applies to cases wherein death is caused in a sudden fight without premeditation in the heat of passion in a sudden quarrel. In this case, the act was well planned.