Culpable Homicide & Murder - A Critical Evaluation | Prof. (Dr.) Bushan Tilak Kaul
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2020
- Legal Empowerment Through Interaction - Lecture Series [LETILS-42]
Shyam Padman Associates | Advocates & Legal Consultants
Topic: Culpable Homicide & Murder - A Critical Evaluation
Speaker - Prof. (Dr.) Bushan Tilak Kaul (Former: Chairperson, Delhi Judicial Academy. Professor of Law, University of Delhi)
Host: Shyam Padman, Advocate, High Court of Kerala
| Send your Queries and Suggestions at |
letils.spa@gmail.com
| Webinar @Zoom held on Jun 4, 2020, 03:30 PM India |
| Contact Us |
shyampadmanassociates@hotmail.com
Music: Royalty.Free.Music.from.Bensound
Hello everyone ....
The answer to the question raised by hon'ble Justice Nagamuthu at around 2:00:00 timings of the video, can be summarised in the following 2 paragraph:-
(1).
The word "act" under 299 part (1) covers both type of deaths namely :-
Death by bodily injury -
Example - A blows off the head of B and B dies ,it shows death is caused with intention by causing bodily injury.
Death without bodily injury -
Example - A mixes poison in B' s food.
B dies by eating that food, it shows death is caused with intention but without bodily injury.
299(2) covers only those cases where death is caused only by causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death.
299(3) - The word "Act" covers both type of deaths namely :-
Death without bodily injury
And
Death with bodily injury.
Paragraph (2) :-
Regarding the latter part of Section 300(4)
Justice Nagamuthu raised a question that- whether an act which is so imminently dandegours that it must in all probability cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, will fit under clause 3 of 299?
The answer to this question is Yes, as the clause 3 of 299 covers the cases of bodily injury also.
This can be well understood by an example:-
A knows the fact that B has undergone a heart by pass surgery and the stitches are not healed yet.
On an occasion due to some reason A became angry at B and in the fit of anger ,A hit B' stomach with 5-6 blows of his fist.
In the process , unintentionally 2 blows were hit on the chest of B ,which resulted the rupture of stitches and B died.
Here knowledge can be imputed upon A that he did the act of hitting B at chest with the knowledge that his act is so imminently dandegours that it must in all probability will cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
These are my personal views and request all to kindly correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks
I think you are right when you say that the expression "act" Mentioned in the third limb of section 299 is broad enough to cover both the situation mentioned in the 4thly part of section 300.
The expression 'such act ' used in third limb of 299 is better understood by the expression "an act" used in first limb. Further "an act" so used in first limb is not to cause any other effect but death, and expression "such act" Used in third limb is only in the reference to the earlier used expression in the first limb of s. 299 , i. e. " an act" . Therefore "such act " Used in third limb is only to cause death and further as the limb says ' with knowledge that it ( act) is likely to cause death.
Death for the purpose of culpability to the extent of falling either into 299 or 300, can not be effected without causing any sort of bodily injury, either by act or omission. (Whether an omission amounts to an act is though a different question yet In my view an omission allowed with the intention or the knowledge amounts to an act, and probably, therefore, the expression 'omission' is not mentioned in 299 or 300,though omission also can attract 299 or 300.)
Causing death, and causing such bodily injury as to likely to cause death mentioned in 4thly of 300 is caused by an act, therefore, "such act "mentioned in third limb in 299 covers both the situation. Committing 'an act' with knowledge that 'such act' will likely to cause death is broad enough to cover ' causing such bodily injury likely to cause death.'
So you are right in saying that 'act' covers both the situations mentioned in fourthly of s. 300.
And on the lighter note : the example given by you in my opinion would fall under 2ndly of 300 and not either in third limb of 299 or in the second part of fourthly of s. 300. Though you have mentioned the expression 'unintentionally' yet by knowing the fact that the person he was giving uncontrolled free blow would amount to murder in such situation . Intention of causing death in my view would be drawn by the act of giving blow at the stitch on chest , in the circumstances that the offender knows it to be likely to cause death. And since the offender knows about the recent heart surgery of the victim, therefore by establishing through objective inquiry whether that blow given on the affected chest area was sufficient to cause death, and secondly wether it was caused by you, and if both the facts get established than intention to cause death to fall under secondly of 300 will be presumed, until explained or disproved.
Anyways Justice Nagamuthu reasonable mind keep on dissecting a situation till it reaches to the fact -the truth.
Great effort by every body!! How less we know before them !! Thank you!
An extremely potential lecture ruined to a large extent by the audio quality. The attendees should have intervened to ensure that Prof. Kaul's technical issues are resolved.
Greatly privileged and honoured to listen to Prof Kaul so clear and erudite explanation of this complex sections of IPC.
Pro.Michel Sandell and Pro.B.T Kaul are the world's best professors in law field.
Dr. Kaul is a great teacher, academician, juristic person and professional the field of legal fraternity.
He is the best professor I have ever seen in my life
I met him for the first time in University of Kashmir (Department of Law)
Sir salute to you. Remarkable distinction 🙏💐
Sir has taught me while I was doing LL.M in ILI, such teacher very hard to find
Thanks a lot sir g, it was too much important lecture, and discussion on the queries also 🙏🙏🙏
Such an extensive lecture, thank you...
Great lecture thanks sir
Delight to hear such geniuses🙏🏻
Such a great lecture...thanku sir
Appreciate work
He was my teacher in llb. Students from other sections would bunk their classes to hear this legend
Which collage
Delhi university
22.00 R vankalu vs haydrabad
good lecture
Bt kaul sir at his best, we love you sir .
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Culpable homicide amounting to murder can be explained in 5 minutes and shyam and team to improve upon as nowadays lot of perfect vedios are available on air and you are wasting public time.
Hello everyone...
The answer to the question raised by Hon'ble justice sankaran at around 02:20:00 timings of the video that can a court import illustration appended to section 300 for the purpose of interpretation?
The answer is yes, as courts often uses illustrations appended to section 114 Indian Evidence Act for many inferences, therefore it's open to the courts to import any illustrations for the purpose of interpretation.
Section 299 .. AN ACT
IN Section 300 ...THE ACT .. .. it will clear all doubt ...
Excellent lecture on a really bad interface!!
Audio is disturbed in many areas...such a wonderful lecture got ruined
Coordinator is very much disturbed
dear sir I want to help from you actually sir I want to analysis statute of law word by word like you so plz help me from your kindness.
Section 7 IPC.. with regard to ""illustration"" clarify
The God of Criminal Law
In my opinion this is what I rely on
Criminal law : Dr Kaul, Nagamuthu (J)
Civil procedure : N kumar (J)
Arbitration : Nariman (J) , Sundar (J)
Evidence : Anand Venkatesh (J)
No voice clarity. The organisers have not taken due care and attention on the technical aspects. Very sorry to say that finally I got headache though it is a wise and intellectual presentation due to gross technical errors.
Locus classicus