Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code talks about punishment for murder.

302. Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another without any justification or valid excuse and with malice intended.

Section 300 of the IPC talks about murder.

300. Murder

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 or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Section 302 makes murder a cognizable and non-bailable offense.

Rajesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)

This is a case in Delhi High Court, a Division Bench comprising of S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel, JJ. dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was alleged to have murdered his wife. It was proved that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. The prosecution examined 45 witnesses before the trial court. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and findings of the court, the appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife under Section 302 and sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved thus, the appellant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The High Court perused the record and took note of the findings as made by the trial court. The Court noted that the mother of the appellant (PW 1) deposed that the appellant and the deceased slept together and also that she saw the appellant with the deceased on the night of the incident. Further, the post-mortem report clearly showed that the death of the deceased was a result of serious injuries which were caused by the sharp-edged weapon, maybe a farsa. In the Court’s opinion, the prosecution proved that the death was homicidal. Moreover, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report proved that the death was caused inside the jhuggi where the deceased was sleeping with the appellant. The Court observed that there was no alternative theory to suggest how the deceased may have suffered the injuries in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the reasons aforestated, the Court was unable to reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Arjun and ANR. Etc Vs State of Chattisgarh

On 19.11.2006 at about 9:45 AM, deceased Ayodhya Prasad had gone to his field alongside Bajrang Manjhi, Borri Verma, Gilli Raout and Makunda Raout. The deceased was cutting a tree with the help of the persons along with him and at that time, the appellants came in the field and they stopped the deceased and his labor from cutting the tree. Deceased Ayodhya Prasad told the appellants that he was the owner of the tree, therefore he was cutting the tree. Some quarrel took place between them and the appellants assaulted the deceased with a knife and stone. The deceased fell down and sustained injuries on his head. His head was severely injured, he was taken to Bilaspur for treatment, but, he died on the way near Mahanadi Bridge. Shivprasad, the brother of the deceased lodged a First Information Report.  The post-mortem was conducted, the cause of death was a hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries and the death was homicidal in nature. The investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session  Raipur, from where it was received on transfer by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants.

The appellants approached the Supreme Court for relief. The division bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellants were held liable for punishment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

This article aimed to define the meaning of Section 302, the nature of Section 302, the punishment of murder and also some landmark judgments on Section 302.