criminal law.
ANURAG
(Querist) 16 August 2008
This query is : Resolved
1.>what is the extent of the limitation of the word "sudden" in the section 335 and 334 of the ipc that is grave and sudden provocation leading to death of the deceased.
2.>acc to sec 300(3) of the IPC that the bodily injury shud be sufficient i ordinary course of nature to cause death. on what grounds or evidence can the word "sufficient" be proved.
3.>how one accussed can get the benefit of doubt if he has caused bodily injured that is shooting someone twice, the provocation being grave but not sudden in this case as the accussed went off to bring his gun and came along with a colleague .
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 16 August 2008
dear Anurag,
keep one thing always in mind, when u r practising as a lawyer on the criminal side, that in criminal law every thing depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
in criminal law we can not be hypertechnical, some human approach is to be applied without causing injustice.....thats why death penalty is given in rarest of rare cases.
the situation or the scene of crime will itself determine the extent of private defence available (pls consider the private defence aspect also).
better would be if u go through certain judgments on this issue that will create a judicial picture in ur mind.
Srinivas.B.S.S.T
(Expert) 17 August 2008
Right said Sir. In criminal law we have to very careful in conducting the case the minutest detail of the case should also be given much consideration. The most important aspect while conducting the cross-examination is not “what to ask” but “what not to ask” lest we will be building a case to the prosecution instead of disproving the allegations against the accused.
Now coming to your query
The lawmakers used the word sudden in Sections 334 and 335 if IPC in the sense that the provocation is happened instantaneously and there is no past history of brooding vengeances between the provoker and provoked.
Sufficiency of the injury to cause death of the person can be proved by the evidence of the doctor who conducted post-mortem. Here we carefully have to prove that the injury alone is not the cause of death. Throw some light on the medical history of the deceased to find any preexisting diseases and can put a suggestion that injury in combination with that disease might have caused the death and in absence of such aliment the injury alone is not capable of causing death of a person.
Here I opine that the accused is not entitled for benefit of doubt as though the provocation is sudden but the 3rd Ingredient of both 334 and 335 is missing. Hope I am successful in clearing your query. I am wrong please do let me know. Regards. Srinivas. BSST
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 17 August 2008
Dear Anurag, Sudden provocation is a diffence which favours the accused. But that must be reasonable and justifiable. Suppose if a shot injury was from the back of the decesaed that too from a medium long range can we say it is for protecting him self from the dead fellow. So every thing depends on facts of the case. Sudden provocation is a factual one. It is some thing which generates mental impulses constantly and continously which the sufferer could not resist. Classical example is sex with a 3rd man by a wife. The husband, if a weapon is avilable near to him, may do it suddenly. Instead if he peep through the window or door and make all preparations there after and committed the crime no sudden provocation is available. Further in your case you have to explain why there was two shots.
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 18 August 2008
Dear Anurag,
You may go through Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Delhi Administration, State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, State of U.P. v. Mohd. Musheer Khan and Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab.
