BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1962 SC 605AIR 1980 SC 898
Non-BailableCognizable: YesCourt of Session
THE STATUTE
Original Text
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...
Simplified
Section 300 defines when culpable homicide becomes murder — by specifying four 'murder conditions' (elevated mental states) and then five exceptions that can reduce murder back to culpable homicide. The four conditions: (1) Direct intention to cause death — clearest murder; (2) Intention to cause bodily injury the accused subjectively knows is likely to be fatal; (3) Intention to cause a specific bodily injury objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (the 'Virsa Singh clause' — subjective intent to harm, objective test of lethality); (4) Knowledge of near-certain death from an imminently dangerous act. The five exceptions: (1) Grave and sudden provocation; (2) Private defence exceeding justifiable limits; (3) Public servant acting in excess of lawful powers in good faith; (4) Sudden fight in heat of passion without premeditation; (5) Consent of a consenting adult. These exceptions 'reduce' murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304).
Legal Evolution
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961) is Section 300's most famous case — Naval Commander Nanavati shot his wife's lover; his acquittal by jury was overturned by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The case led directly to abolition of the jury system in India and extensively discussed Exception 1 (sudden provocation).
Landmark Precedents
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
RELEVANCE
India's most famous murder trial — ended the jury system; extensively discussed the 'grave and sudden provocation' exception.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
RELEVANCE
Established the 'rarest of rare' doctrine for death penalty in murder cases.
Practical Scenarios
"Shooting someone in the head with intent to kill — murder under First clause."
"Stabbing someone in the heart knowing it will almost certainly be fatal — murder under Second clause."
"Deep stab wound to the abdomen — murder under Third clause even if accused claims only to have intended injury."
"Pouring petrol on a sleeping person and lighting a match — Fourth clause (imminently dangerous)."
Common Queries
1. Grave and sudden provocation. 2. Private defence exceeding justifiable limits. 3. Public servant exceeding powers in good faith. 4. Sudden fight in heat of passion without premeditation. 5. Consent of an adult victim to risk of harm.
The Third condition — where the accused intended to cause a specific bodily injury that was, objectively, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused need not have intended death; they only need to have intended the specific injury that killed.