Provisions of Murder under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Here we will understand the concept of Provisions of Murder in detail.
• Section 101 of the BNS categorizes culpable homicide as murder, outlining specific scenarios where an act resulting in death becomes
classified as murder.
These scenarios include
(a) Intention to Cause Death
Murder is established if the act leading to death is done with the clear intention of causing the demise of another individual. This implies a deliberate, premeditated decision to end someone’s life.
(b) Intention to Cause Fatal Bodily Injury
Murder is recognized if the act leading to death is done with the intention of causing bodily injury that the offender knows to be likely to result in the death of the person harmed.
(c) Bodily Injury Sufficient to Cause Death
The section acknowledges murder when the act causing death is done with the intention of inflicting bodily injury, and the nature of the injury intended is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.
(d) Imminent Danger with Knowledge
We attribute murder when a person knows that the act he commits is so imminently dangerous that it will probably cause death or bodily injury likely to result in death, and he commits the act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or severe injury.
Exceptions to Murder under Section 101 of BNS
Exception 1 – Grave and Sudden Provocation
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, deprived of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
This exception comes with specific conditions. The offender should not seek or voluntarily provoke the provocation, and no one should give it in obedience to the law or in the lawful exercise of powers as a public servant.”
The exception also applies to provocation given in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Courts determine whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offense from amounting to murder as a question of fact.
Exception 2 – Right of Private Defence
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law. A person must cause the death without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than necessary for defence.
Exception 3 – Public Servant Acting in Good Faith
If a public servant or a person aiding him in advancing public justice exceeds the powers given by law, he commits culpable homicide and not murder. The public servant must act in good faith, genuinely believing his act to be lawful and necessary for the discharge of duty, and without ill-will toward the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4 – Sudden Fight Without Premeditation
Culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Courts emphasize that, in such cases, it is immaterial which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5 – Consent of Person Above 18 Years
“When a person above eighteen years consents to suffer death or take the risk of death, the offender commits culpable homicide and not murder.”
Here we will understand the concept Provisions of Murder in detail.
Section 103 of BNS- Punishment for Murder
Having studied the provisions and exceptions under Section 101, it is important to understand the corresponding punishments for murder as outlined in Section 103 of the BNS.
(1) Punishment for Murder
The court shall punish whoever commits murder with either death or imprisonment for life and may also impose a fine.
(2) Group Offense on Specific Grounds
Section 103(2) addresses instances where a group of five or more persons, acting in concert, commits murder based on
specific grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief, or any other ground.
In such cases, the court shall punish each member of the group with either death or life imprisonment.
Members of the group are also liable to pay a fine.
The legislature, through Section 103(2) of BNS, attempts to tackle the issue of mob lynching.
Landmark Judgments
“K.M. Nanavati vs. the State of Maharashtra“, 1961 SC
It’s a landmark in the context of provocation.
The Supreme Court emphasized that judges must consider whether a reasonable person
in the accused’s circumstances would be provoked to lose self-control.
This case established the criteria for evaluating the impact of sudden and grave provocation, providing valuable insights into the complex
interplay of emotions and actions leading to a homicide.
“Rawalpenta Venkalu vs State of Hyderabad“, 1956 SC
It stands out as a case where the accused deliberately set fire to a room, leading to the death of
the victim.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the sessions court, recognizing the clear intention of the accused to cause death.
“State of Karnataka v. Shariff “,2003 SC
In this case, the court deemed a child witness’s statement about his mother’s death reliable.
The court highlighted the importance
of considering the circumstances surrounding the incident and the reliability of witness statements in establishing the accused’s liability for murder.