0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
26 visualizzazioni42 pagine
The document discusses the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under Bangladeshi law. It notes that culpable homicide becomes murder if any of the four conditions in Section 300 of the Penal Code are met: 1) if there is intent to cause death, 2) if there is intent to cause bodily harm knowing it will likely cause death, 3) if there is intent to cause serious bodily harm sufficient to likely cause death, or 4) if the act is so dangerous it must cause death. Key aspects that determine murder include premeditation, probability of death, and the nature of injury. Culpable homicide is when these factors of Section 300 are not present.
The document discusses the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under Bangladeshi law. It notes that culpable homicide becomes murder if any of the four conditions in Section 300 of the Penal Code are met: 1) if there is intent to cause death, 2) if there is intent to cause bodily harm knowing it will likely cause death, 3) if there is intent to cause serious bodily harm sufficient to likely cause death, or 4) if the act is so dangerous it must cause death. Key aspects that determine murder include premeditation, probability of death, and the nature of injury. Culpable homicide is when these factors of Section 300 are not present.
The document discusses the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under Bangladeshi law. It notes that culpable homicide becomes murder if any of the four conditions in Section 300 of the Penal Code are met: 1) if there is intent to cause death, 2) if there is intent to cause bodily harm knowing it will likely cause death, 3) if there is intent to cause serious bodily harm sufficient to likely cause death, or 4) if the act is so dangerous it must cause death. Key aspects that determine murder include premeditation, probability of death, and the nature of injury. Culpable homicide is when these factors of Section 300 are not present.
Ahsan Habib Lecturer, Faculty of Law, EU Murder(M) or Culpable Homicide (CH)? Homicide • The word homicide is derived from two Latin words - homo and cido. Homo means human and cido means killing by a human. Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being. • A homicide can be lawful or unlawful. • Lawful homicide includes situations where a person who has caused the death of another cannot be blamed for his death e.g. persons non compos mentis. • For example, in exercising the right of private defense (but not exceeding the right of private defence) or in other situations explained in Chapter IV of the Penal Code covering General Exceptions (hanumant.com) the touchstones to differentiate betwen CH and M • death premeditated? • probability of death? • the nature of the weapon used? • the nature of the injury? • the part of the body where the injury is inflicted? the key point????
Premeditation
Bander Ali v State 40 DLR
(AD) 200 Murder-"cold blooded"
In case of murder the death of
the victim is calculated, forethought, designed, pre- planned or premeditated. Culpable Homicide- • there is no premeditation on the part of the offender Probability of death State v Ashraf Ali 46 DLR(AD) 241
when death is probable it is culpable
homicide and when death is most probable it is murder • Section 300 of the Penal Code defines murder • Section 300 says that Culpable Homicide is Murder if the act by which the death is caused is done- • with the intention of causing death; or • with an 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 • with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death; or • with the knowledge that the act is so dangerous that it must , in all probability, cause death, and he has no valid reason for doing that act. with the intention of causing death • A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder. with an 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
• A, knowing that Z is labouring under such
a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death
• here intention to kill is not required rather
intention to inflict a bodily injury is sufficient, but that bodily injury is of such a nature that it (injury) is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death • example: A intentionally gives B a blow with a heavy sharp edged chapati. A may say that i did not give the blow to kill him. But the resultant injury is of such a nature that in the ordinary course of nature it is sufficient to cause death. ordinary course of nature • Where the accused inflicted stab injuries on vital part which penetrated to a deth of 1 and ¾ inch pierced the left lung and had cut the forth rib of the deceased, it could be said that considerable force was used by the accused and injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death with the knowledge that the act is so dangerous that it must , in all probability, cause death, and he has no valid reason for doing that act
• A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a
crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual, • Here A may not have the intention to kill that particular person still he has knowledge that operating a loaded cannon is so dangerous that it must in all probability cause death of any person of the crowd. When Culpable Homicide is not Murder ( Section 299+ exceptions to Sec.300) • causing death by doing an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death ( here the intention is to cause injury not death) • Causing death by doing an act with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death ( here knowledge is to cause death and not of injury-knowledge only implies cognitive notice and not desire for causing death) When Culpable Homicide is not Murder ( Section 299+ exceptions to Sec.300) (contd.) • the accused committed the homicide whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation offered by the victim provided that - a) provocation is not sought or volunarily provioked by the offender b) provocation is not arising out of an action required by law or of an action done by a public servant within the colour of his office c) provocation is not given while exercisin gthe right of private defence u/s 96-106 of the Penal Code When Culpable Homicide is not Murder ( Section 299+ exceptions to Sec.300) (contd.)
• if the accused causes the death of the
victim by mistake or accident • if the accused causes the death of any person by acting ultra vires while exercising of his right of private defence of person or property in good faith provided that it (death) was caused without premeditation or without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence When Culpable Homicide is not Murder ( Section 299+ exceptions to Sec.300) (contd.) • if a public servant acts ultra vires and causes the death of any person while exercising his power to advance the public justice provided the act was done in good faith within the colour of his office and without any ulterior purpose • if the accused committed the culpable homicide - -without premeditation -in a sudden fight -in the heat of passion -upon a sudden quarrel -without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner When Culpable Homicide is not Murder ( Section 299+ exceptions to Sec.300) (contd.)
• culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed with the consent of the accused who happens to be at least 18 years of age to sum up -culpable homicide is not murder- in the cases of • when the act is done with an intention to cause an injury which is likely to cause death • when the act is done with the knowledge of causing death of such person by such act • grave or sudden provocation • accident • ultra vires exercise of right of private defence or of public power • sudden fight in the heat of passion upon quarrel • consent causing death by doing an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death ( here the intention is to cause injury not death)
shooing on the leg, arm etc. but the victim
had a pevious injury and died. Causing death by doing an act with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death • where A digs a pit in front of the door of B. He knows that B may die if he falls into the pit. ( vandalizing in the car ???) Time to cool down? • provocation contemplated in Exception no.1 to sec.300 shall not only be grave, but also it shall be sudden and if considerable time intervened in which the passion aroused by the provocation subsides , then there is hardly any scope for deprivation of power of self-control-----Khan Abdul Hafiz vs. The State BCR (1987) (AD) 214 • a provocation cannot be said to be "sudden" if it takes place 12 hours before the murder--- State vs. Siddiqur Rahman 2 BLC 145 Majibar Rahman vs. State 1983 BLD 145 • provocation must be such as will upset not merely a hasty, hot-headed and hypersensitive person but would upset also a person of ordinary sense and calmness • the test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed , can be so provoked as to cause loss of its self-control Makbul Hossain vs. State (1970) 22 DLR 269 • When an offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder- - if it falls within the ambit of the any of the clauses of Sec.299 - if it does not attract the ingredients of one of the four clauses of Sec.300 -if any of the five exceptions mentioned in Section 300 be attracted to the facts of a particular case 1960 CrLJ 303 • Culpable homicide is a generic term. • the difference between the two offences of culpable homicide and murder is not only fine but also real. • the offence will amount to murder if any of the conditions laid down four clauses in s.300 are satisfied • if the offence comes under s.299 or any of the exceptions to S.300, it will be culpable homicide not amount to murder. 1960 CrLJ 303 • Where the intention to kill is present, the act amounts to murder. where such an intention is absent the act amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. determination of the intention to kill depends on the merits of each case. • a person is presumed to intend the nature and probable consequences of his acts. Intention has to be inferred from the acts done by him. clause 3, sec.300 • Clause three of s.300 speaks of an intention to cause bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Emphasis here is on the sufficiency of injury to cause death. sufficiency is the high probability of death depending upon the nature of weapon used or the part of the body where the injury is inflicted or both. If the probability of death is very great, the requirements of clause (3) are satisfied. 45 CrLJ 729 (contd.) • the fact that a particular individual having secured specially skilled treatment or being in possession of particularly strong constitution has survived an injury which would prove fatal to the majority of persons subjected to it, is not enough to prove that the injury is not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature. • so here the test " ordinary course of nature" refers to the situation of an average person whose constitution is not much weak or strong. clause 3, sec.300 • whether the injury which the accused intended was "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" to cause death or was merely "likely" to cause death will depend upon th eweapon used, the number of blows stuck, the force with which the weapon was used and the part of the body injured (AIR 1966 SC 148) Clause 4 of Sec.300 • the main ingredient of this clause is that the person committing the act in question should have had the knowledge that the act done is so immently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. illustrations for clause 4 • the explosion of a bomb in a confined room -imputes such a knowledge to the individual accused-intention to kill a particular individual does not exculpate him from the ambit of the clause ( 31 CrLJ 290) • a person who plunges his knife into the neck of another must be imputed with the knowledge that the injury he inflicts must in all probability will cause death of the victm ( AIR 1954 Mad 323) AIR 1968 SC 881 • where a person sets fire to the clothes of another, the former must have known that he was running the risk of causing the death of the latter or such bodily injury asis likely to cause his death. His act will fall within clause "fourthly" of S.300. section 300, exception 2 -essentials to prove the right of self-defence • firstly, it was the other party (victim) who initiated the fight, • secondly, that party taking plea of self- defence also suffered injuries at the hands of the other part first and then resort was taken to defend against the aggressor, and • thrirdly, right of private defence continues so long as the apprehension of hurt or grievous hurt continues to exist • case: Md Taj alias Kala vs. State 1997 CrLJ 1043 Sec. 300, Exception 4 • to invoke exception 4 it must be established that the accused committed the offence: -without premeditation -in a sudden fight -in th eheat of passion upon a sudden quarrel -without offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusal manner ( AIR 1956 SC 99) AIR 1980 SC 108 • where the accused chased the deceased who was unarmed and stabbed him twice and was poised to give a further blow which was foiled by the intervention of a third person who gave a blow to the accused on his head and it was found that the deceased had not come armed for a fight and there was no mutual exchange of blows between the accused and the deceased. It was held that the case did not fall within the exception 4. AIR 1956 SC 99 • a fight is a combat between two or more persons, whether with or without weapons • the word "sudden" implies that the fight should not have been prearranged Abdul Majid vs. Crown 7 DLR(FC) 11 • the question whether a person can be said to have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner is a question of facts • "cruelty" here carries ordinary meaning to imply heartless use of force to cause injury to a person who had no power of resistance • if on the course of sudden fight one party resorts to a dangerous weapon, like a knife or a dagger, the other party being wholly unarmed, and causes mortal injuries to his adversary, the person is said to have taken an undue advantage Doctrine of “transferred malice”- s.301 • The doctrine of transferred malice applies where the mens rea of one offence can be transferred to another. For example, suppose A shoots at B intending to kill B, but misses and hits and kills C. Transferred malice can operate so that the mens rea of A (intention to kill B) can be transferred to the killing of C. Consequently A is liable for the murder of C, despite the fact that he did not actually intend to kill C. • R v Saunders (1573) 2 Plowd 473
facts: The defendant gave his wife an apple which he
had poisoned with arsenic. He wanted to kill her so that he could marry another. The wife took a bite from the apple then gave it to their daughter. The daughter died.
Held:
The defendant was liable for the murder of his daughter.
His intention to kill his wife was transferred to the daughter. s.301 (Contd.) • When a person intending to kill one person kills another person by mistake, he is guilty of murder as if he had killed the person whom he intended to kill (1967 AllLJ 631) Attempt to murder (s.307)