Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies

&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

E-Notes

Class : B.A.LL.B IV Semester

Paper Code : LLB 206

Subject : Law of Crimes II

Faculty Name : Ms. Neha Maggo

UNIT-1

OFFENCES AGAINST THE HUMAN BODY-I

Homicide from the earliest times has fascinated the human mind and has always been considered
as most heinous of offences. The word homicide has been derived from the latin word ‘homo’
which means a man, and ‘caedere’ which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing
of a human being, by a human being. But then, not all cases of homicide are culpable as all
systems of law do distinguish between lawful and unlawful homicide For instance, killing in self
defense or in pursuance of a lawful authority or by reason of mistake or fact, is not culpable.
Likewise, if death is caused by accident or misfortune, or while doing an act in good faith and
without any criminal intention for the benefit of the person killed, the man is excused from
criminal responsibility for homicide.

Further in some cases the accused may be punished for lesser offences (for e.g. hurt) even though
death has resulted, if the injury resulting in death though voluntarily caused was not likely to
cause death. For example, A gives B a blow and B, who suffers from an enlarged spleen of
which A was not aware, dies as a result. A is not guilty of Culpable Homicide as his intention
was merely to cause an injury that was not likely to cause death. It is in connection with with
homicide that the maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ has been frequently cited as
stating the two fundamental requirements of criminal liability.

1
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

Culpable Homicide/ Manslaughter

The crime of manslaughter is termed as Culpable Homicide. It is a term in the law of Scotland
and England that covers a number of criminal homicides equivalent to manslaughter in legal
criminal jurisdictions.

Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code deals with Culpable Homicide and it is stated as follows –
“Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death , or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of Culpable
Homicide.”

The Penal Code has first defined Culpable Homicide (Section 299, I.P.C) termed as
manslaughter under English law which is genus, and then murder (Section 300, I.P.C) which is
species of homicide.

Explanation 1 – A person who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to
have caused his death.

Explanation 2 – Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily
injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and
skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3 – The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But
it may amount to Culpable Homicide to caused the death of a living child, if any part of that
child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or completely born.

Homicide is the killing of a human being by a human being. It is either a) lawful, or b) unlawful.

Lawful Homicide: It is also known as Simple Homicide, includes several cases falling under the
General Exceptions. The death is caused in one of the following ways :-

● Where death is caused by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or
knowledge in the doing of a lawful act, in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper
care and caution (s. 80)

● Where the death is caused justifiably, that is to say,

2
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

➢ By a person, who is bound, or by mistake of fact in good faith believes himself bound, by law
(s.76)

➢ By a Judge when acting judicially when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which
is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law. (s.77)

➢ By a person acting in pursuance of the judgement or order of a Court of Justice. (s.78)

➢ By a person who is justified or who by reason of a mistake of fact, in good faith, believes
himself to be justified by law.(s.79)

➢ By a person acting without criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith, for the purpose
of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property (s.81)

➢ Where death is caused in the exercise of the right of private defense of person or property (ss.
100, 103)

● Where death is caused by a child, or person of unsound mind, or an intoxicated person as will
come under ss. 82,83,84 and 85.

● Where death is caused unintentionally by an act done in good faith for benefit of the person
killed, when:

➢ He or, if a minor or lunatic, his guardian, has expressly or impliedly consented to such an act
(ss. 87, 88); or

➢ Where it is impossible for the person killed to signify his consent or where he is incapable of
giving consent, and has no guardian from whom it is possible to obtain consent, in time for the
thing to be done with benefit. (s.92)

Unlawful Homicide: Culpable Homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide. It is the causing
of death by doing:

i. An act with the intention of causing death.

ii. An act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or iii. An
act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.

3
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

Without one or other of those elements, an act, though it may be in its nature criminal and may
occasion death, will not amount to the offence of Culpable Homicide.

Culpable Homicide – Essential Elements:

Culpable Homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide as defined in Section 299, I.P.C it
purports to define and explain as to when an act of causing death constitutes Culpable Homicide.
The important elements are:-

1) Causing of death of a human being.

2) Such death must have been caused by an act:

i. With the intention of causing death; or

ii. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or.

iii. With the knowledge that the doer is likely by such an act to cause death.

The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Unless one of the mental states
mentioned in ingredient is present, an act causing death cannot amount to Culpable Homicide.
Thus where a constable who had loaded but defective gun with him wanted to arrest an accused
who was going on a bullock cart by climbing on the cart and there was a scuffle between him
and the accused and in course of which the gun went off and killed the constable, it was held that
accused could not be held guilty of Culpable Homicide.

Circumstances For Culpable Homicide:

Causes Death: In order to hold a person liable under the impugned Section there must be
causing of death of a human being as defined under Section 46 of the Code. The causing of death
of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide as stated in Explanation 3 appended to Section
299, I.P.C. But the person would not be set free. He would be punishable for causing miscarriage
either under Section 312 or 315 I.P.C depending on the gravity of the injury. The act of causing
death amounts to Culpable Homicide if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the
child may not have breathed or been completely born. The clause ‘though the child may not have
breathed’ suggests that a child may be born alive, though it may not breath (respire), or it may
respire so imperfectly that it may be difficult to obtain clear proof that respiration takes place.

4
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

Causing of death must be of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and
at least partially an infant under delivery or just delivered.

By Doing An Act With The Intention Of Causing Death: Death may be caused by various
means, such as by poisoning, drowning, striking, beating and so on and so forth. As explained
under Section 32, I.P.C the word ‘act’ has been given a wider meaning in the Code in as much as
it includes not only an act of commission, but illegal omissions as well and the word ‘illegal’ is
applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which is
prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for civil action (s.43). Therefore death caused by
illegal omission will amount to Culpable Homicide.

Death caused by effect of words on imaginations or passions:

The authors of the Code observe: “ The reasonable course, in our opinion , is to consider
speaking as an act, and to treat A as guilty of voluntary Culpable Homicide, if by speaking he
has voluntarily caused Z’s death, whether his words operated circuitously by inducing Z to
swallow a poison or throwing Z into convulsions.”

With The Intention Of Causing Such Bodily Injury as is likely to cause death: The word
‘intention’ in clause (a) to Section 299, I.P.C has been used in its ordinary sense, i.e., volitional
act done without being able to foresee the consequence with certitude. The connection between
the ‘act’ and the death caused thereby must be direct and distinct; and though not immediate it
must not be too remote. If the nature of the connection between the act and the death is in itself
obscure, or if it is obscured by the action of concurrent causes, or if the connection is broken by
the intervention of subsequent causes, or if the interval of time between death and the act is too
long, the above condition is not fulfilled. Where a constable fired five shots in succession at
another constable resulting in his death, it was held that it would be native to suggest that he had
neither intention to kill nor any knowledge that injuries sufficient to kill in ordinary course of
nature would not follow. His acts squarely fell in clauses 2,3 and 4 of s.300, I.P.C i.e Culpable
Homicide amounting to murder.

With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death: ‘Knowledge’ is a strong word
and imports certainty and not merely a probability. If the death is caused under circumstances

5
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

specified under Section 80, the person causing the death will be exonerated under that Section.
But, if it is caused in doing an unlawful act, the question arises whether he should be punished
for causing it. The Code says that when a person engaged in the commission of an offence,
without any addition on account of such accidental death. The offence of Culpable Homicide
supposes an intention, or knowledge of likelihood of causing death. In the absence of such
intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be grievous hurt, or simple hurt. It is only
where death is attributed to an injury which the offender did not know would endanger life
would be likely to cause death and which in normal conditions would not do so notwithstanding
death being caused, that the offence will not be Culpable Homicide but grievous or simple hurt.
Every such case depends upon the existence of abnormal conditions unknown to the person who
inflicts injury. Once it is established that an act was a deliberate acct and not the result of
accident or rashness or negligence, it obvious that the offence would be Culpable Homicide.

Death Caused of Person Other Than Intended: To attract the provisions of this Section it
suffices if the death of a human being is caused whether the person was intended to be killed or
not. For instance, B with the intention of killing A in order to obtain the insured amount gave
him some sweets mixed with poison. The intended victim ate some of the sweets and threw the
rest away which were picked up by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. It was held
that B as liable for murder of the children though he intended to kill only A. Death Caused
Inadvertently without Intention While Doing an Unlawful Act: It has been clearly stated in I.P.C
that a person will not be liable for Culpable Homicide, if he causes the death of a person while
doing an unlawful act, provided he did not intend to kill or cause death by doing an act that he
knew was likely to have that effect. On the other hand, under English law, if a person whilst
committing an unlawful act accidently kills another, he would be liable for manslaughter or
murder according to whether his act constituted a felony or misdemeanor.

Consent is not a defense to Manslaughter: The House of Lords in R v Walker held that the
respondent a truck driver carrying illegal immigrants will be criminally responsible for
involuntary manslaughter, if the act results in death, even if the victim has consented to take such
risk engaged in some joint unlawful activity. In this case the defendant, truck driver ( a Dutch
national) drove a lorry from Rotterdam (Netherlands) to Zeebrugge (United Kingdom). The lorry
had been loaded with a refrigerated container in which 60 Chinese (illegal immigrants) had been
hidden to conceal the illegal human cargo behind a load of tomatoes. The container was sealed
apart from a small air vent which was closed for 5 hours prior to the ferry crossing to Dover to

6
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

preserve secrecy. On disembarkation at Dover (in England) the customs officers examined the
container and discovered the bodies of 58 immigrants, who had suffocated to death. Wacker was
charged with 58 offences of manslaughter and conspiracy to facilitate the entry of illegal entrants
into United Kingdom. Applying the doctrine of negligence( ex turpi causa non oritur actio) for
causing death of the victims the trial convicted and sentenced the respondent to 6 years
imprisonment for each the manslaughter charges to run concurrently and eight years
imprisonment for the conspiracy to facilitate entry of illegal immigrants with a total of 14 years.
This decision was upheld by the House of Lords as well.

MURDER:

Murder, this term traces its origin form the Germanic word “morth” where it means “secret
killing”. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with any
malice or a forethought. It can also be said as a serious offence when compared to Culpable
homicide. Moreover an offence will not amount to Murder unless it includes an offence which
falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that Murder is a
species where Culpable homicide is a genus.

Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder,
before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: The Culpable
homicide amounts to murder except in some cases, wherein the act which caused murder should
be done with an intention to cause death or Such intention of causing death should cause a bodily
injury to that person or If such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily
injury must have caused the death of that person or He must have the knowledge that the act he
has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is
likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the
act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.

ESSENTIALS:

An offence is said to be murder when the act done by a person contains the following:

Firstly the act should have an intention of causing death to a person - this is what said as culpable
homicide which amounts to murder and this includes omission and the illegal omission as well.
The act should be done with a clear intention to kill a person. The intention of a person should be

7
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

in a conscious state where the person is aroused and he must have deliberately acted particularly
to kill a person.

For an instance, if a man administers any deadly poison to another, then it is evident from this act
that he has an intention to kill that person, where the offender knows the effect of his act clearly.
Here the intention is related to the motive of his thought.

Secondly the offender has the knowledge that his intention to cause an bodily injury is likely to
cause death of the person – according to section 300 of IPC, the intention to cause any bodily
injury with the knowledge that such injury will cause death to the person, this will amount to
Culpable homicide which would amount to Murder. Here the knowledge is not a probability but
he is well known that the act he does against a person is dangerous that would lead to death of
such person. Hence, this is Culpable homicide which amounts to murder.

In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten for several
times by the offender even after the victim falling senseless. In this case, the court held that the
murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the
death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R
(1865), a person got his head fractured after a man who stuck his head with a stick while he was
asleep. The court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to
that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder.

Thirdly if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is
sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person – the subjective factor ends with the
fact that in any ordinary course of action if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full
knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is
no need of any further enquiry in this context. In a case, Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958),
the Supreme Court ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally
or unintentionally, then the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly
injury to the victim of such crime.

Exceptions of Section 300:

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 Culpable Homicide is not
amounting to murder:

8
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

Exception 1 to 5 of s300 of IPC defines conditions when culpable Homicide is not amounting to
murder:

1. Provocation,

2. Right of private defense,

3. Public servant exceeding his power,

4. Sudden fight, and

5. Consent.

Section 301; Culpable Homicide By Causing Death Of Person Other Than Person Whose
Death Was Intended:

If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits
Culpable Homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor
knows himself to be likely to cause, the Culpable Homicide committed by the offender is of the
description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person, whose death he
intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.

Doctrine of Transferred Malice: Blow aimed at the intended victim, if alights on another,
offence is the same as it would have been if the blow had struck the intended victim. This
Section lays down that Culpable Homicide may be committed by causing the death of a person
whom the offender neither intended, nor knew himself to be likely, to kill. This Section
embodies what the English authors describe as the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or the
transmigration of motive. Under this Section, if A intends to kill B but kills C whose death he
neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill C is, by law
attributed to him. Where the accused was deliberately trying to shoot a fleeing man who had
criticized his father in a School Committee Meeting but unfortunately his own maternal uncle
came in between him and the intended victim and thus got killed, it was held that the act of the
accused was nothing but murder under s.302 read with s.301, I.P.C.

9
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

Section 302. Punishment For Murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death,
or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Punishment is a procedure by which the
state causes some torment to the people or property of individual who is discovered blameworthy
of Crime. At the end of the day discipline is endorse forced on a blamed for the encroachment
for the built up rules. The Object of Punishment is to shield society from insidious and
bothersome components by discouraging potential guilty parties, by keeping the genuine
wrongdoers from submitting further offenses and by transforming and transforming them into
honest nationals. The stage of punishment is the final process of the criminal jurisprudence
system. As is well known, one of the fundamental tenets of criminal law is that “person is
considered innocent until proven guilty”. Once the court comes to a conclusion, based on
evaluation of the evidence admitted before the court, that the accusation are proved against the
accused, then the court necessarily decide the quantum of punishment to be Awarded to the
accused.

Section 304: Punishment For Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder: Whoever
commits Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;

Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
This Section provides punishment for Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder. Under it
there are two kinds of punishments applying to two different circumstances:

If the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine.

If the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.

Where the deceased, an old man with an enlarged and flabby heart, was lifted by the accused
during a quarrel and thrown on the ground from some distance with sufficient force and the

10
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

deceased got his ribs fractured and died of a rupture of the heart, it was held that the offence fell
under Section 325 rather than 304 as the accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death.

Section 304 A: Causing Death By Negligence:

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to
Culpable Homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or both.

The original Penal Code had no provision for punishment in those cases where a person causes
death of another by negligence. That is to say, liability for causing death was limited only to
cases of murder and Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder. Section 304A was inserted in
the Penal Code by the Indian Penal Code Act 27 of 1870 to cover those cases which under
English law are termed Manslaughter by negligence.

The impugned Section provides punishment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or fine, or both in case of homicide by rash or negligent act. The Law Commission of
India in 1971 on the basis of strong demand for the increase in punishment for the offences under
this Section recommended for enhancements of the sentence of imprisonment up to 5 years. But
it was not implemented.

Essential Ingredients:

To bring a case of Homicide under Section 304A I.P.C the following condition must exist, viz;

1) There must be death of the person in question

2) The accused must have caused such death; and

3) That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to Culpable
Homicide.

The requirement of Section 304A, I.P.C are that the death of a person, must have been caused by
doing only rash or negligent act, and that there must be a direct nexus between death of a person
and the rash and negligent act of the accused, Section 304 A. I.P.C will not apply. Where the
accused was allowed to manufacture of wet paints in the same room where varnish and
turpentine were stored, fire broke out due to a proximity of open burners to the stored varnish

11
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

and turpentine. The direct or proximate cause of the fire which resulted in 7 deaths was the act of
one Hatim. Apparently in a hurry, he had perhaps not allowed the resin to cool sufficiently and
poured the turpentine too quickly.

The deaths were therefore not directly the result of the rash act on the part of the accused, nor
one that was proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence. The
accused was therefore acquitted of the offence under Section 304 A and held liable for negligent
conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter is punishable under Section 285 of the I.P.C. It
must be causa causans (immediate cause); it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine
qua non (a necessary or inevitable cause).

RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT

A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. It basically denotes want
of proper care and caution and connotes and overt act with a consequence of risk that evil
consequences might follow but with hope it will not happen.

Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. Negligence may be either civil or criminal
negligence depending upon the nature and gravity of the negligence. Criminal negligence is
gross and culpable, neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care to guard against
injury, either to public generally, or to an individual in a particular, which having regard to al the
circumstances out of which charge has arisen, it was duty of person to have adopted.

A Person Convicted Under Section 304A, I.P.C is not entitled to the benefit of probation and
lenient Punishment- The apex court in Dalbir Singh, rejected the plea of the accused driver for
invocation of the benevolent provision of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958.
Medical Negligence: There is an “implied undertaking” by the member of medical profession
that he would use a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill. However, a medical
practitioner cannot be found guilty merely because in matter of opinion he made an error of
judgment. The doctor would not be liable for taking and adopting one course of treatment,
whereas other course might have been preferable.

Doctor liable For Negligence Both in Civil and Criminal Law: A doctor when consulted by a
patient owes him certain duties, viz,

1) A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case;

12
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

2) A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give;

3) A duty of care in administering that treatment.

A breach of duty gives a cause of action under (i) Law of Torts, or (ii) Consumer Protection Act,
1986. The doctor is liable to pay compensation to victim if found liable. In case of civil case in
law of torts the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee, which is about 10% of the
amount claimed apart from other expense incurred. However under Consumer Protection Act,
1986 the plaintiff is not required to pay the court fees or engage a lawyer. He may present his
case personally.

A doctor may also be held liable under the Penal Code for punishment in case of criminal
negligence, for:

a) causing death by rash and negligent act under Section 304A, I.P.C.

b) causing grievous hurt endangering life under Section 388, IPC

c) causing hurt endangering life under Section 337, I.P.C

Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab [ANR 2005]

The plaintiffs, in this case, were the family of Jivan Lal who was admitted and died in CMC
Hospital, Ludhiana. The two doctors who attended the deceased were Jacob Matthew and Allen
Joseph. The doctors had to face the charge of criminal negligence. The plaintiffs claimed
negligence on the doctor's part while procuring oxygen cylinder for their father. The defense
argued that the patient was at the last stage of cancer. He was not supposed to be admitted to any
hospital in lieu of his degrading health.

The Supreme Court argued in favor of the doctors stating that the plaintiff must prove that the
medical professionals acted “in disregard of the life and safety of the patient.” A medical
professional cannot be held liable if they are following the accepted procedure of medical
practice. They cannot be reprimanded for not using an alternative method that might or might not
have brought the desired result. They can only be charged in either of the two conditions: if they
do not possess the skill to match their profession, if they did not show reasonable competence
while discharging their duty; the standard set here would be of an ordinary competent person.

13
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

Section 305: Abetment Of Suicide Of Child Or Insane Person: If any person under eighteen
years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of
intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished
with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

Section 306: Abetment Of Suicide: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 307: Attempt To Murder: Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.

Section 308: Attempt To Commit Culpable Homicide: Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that
if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A
has committed the offence defined in this section.

Section 309: Attempt To Suicide : In India, attempt to commit suicide is punishable u/s 309 of
the Indian Penal Code. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code thus reads as:

14
 Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)

“Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with
fine or with both.”

The above section has been the subject of controversy in many cases, especially over the last two
decades. Most notably, the subject was under scrutiny in the cases of P. Rathinam v. Union of
India and Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab. In the former case, the Division Bench of two
judges of the Supreme Court held section 309 as ultra virus of the fundamental rights enshrined
in Article 21 of the Constitution. In the latter case, a Division Bench of three judges of the
Supreme Court had to decide creativeness of P. Rathinam. The earlier decision of Supreme Court
in P. Rathinam was overruled and the court held that section 309 was neither violative of Article
21 nor Article 14 of the Constitution.

It is also important to note that the Law Commission of India has also recommended
decriminalizing of attempt to commit suicide in its 42nd and 210th reports. So far, the law on
attempt to commit suicide is still based on the ruling of Supreme Court in Gian Kaur.

Sd/-
Ms. Neha Maggo

15