Jageshar v Emperor AIR 1924 Oudh 228

FACTS:

This case is an appeal by Jageshwar Ahir from his conviction under section 304 IPC, 1860. The appellant was beating one Sheopal Ahir with his fists, when Sheopal’s wife interfered while carrying her two months old baby on her shoulder. When the appellant tried to hit at the woman, his blow struck the child on the head, as a result of which he died after two days.

ISSUES:

There were three issues that was discussed by the court in this case:

1. Whether the appellant can be convicted under 304 IPC, 1860?

2. Whether the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide under 301 IPC, 1860?

3. Whether the appellant’s act is covered under the exception provided under 80 IPC,1860?

LAW:

Section 301:

Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.—If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to he likely to cause.

Section 304:

Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Section 304A:

Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both

Section 80:

Accident in doing a lawful act.—Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Section 325:

Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS:

The appellant argued that the prosecution had not put forward the contention that while preparing to hit the woman with his fist, the appellant had an intention to kill her or knowledge that the blow would ne sufficient to ordinarily kill her. Since intention to kill or knowledge that an action is likely to kill is sine qua non for the offence under s. 301, the absence of the mentioned mens rea makes it clear the actions of the appellant are not covered under s.301. Since conviction under s.304 is dependent on liability under s. 301, the appellant cannot be convicted under s. 304 IPC,1860.

It was also argued that the actions of the appellant did not amount to culpable homicide as it was caused out of rashness and was negligent and hence was covered under s.304A of IPC, 1860.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

The respondents argued that the appellant cannot take the protection provided under section 80 as the act that he was involved in, i.e. beating up a person with his fists is in itself illegal. As section 80 provides immunity for only legal acts, it cannot be applied in this case. They also contended that section 304A only applies to acts that do not have any criminal intent. As the acts of the appellant were in itself criminal, section 304A would not apply.

ANALYSIS:

Section 301 deals with the crime of causing the death of a person other than the intended person. This section requires that a person should be intending to or their acts should be motivated by the knowledge that it is sufficient to cause death of the intended person. While going forward with such a mental state, if they happen to cause the death of someone who was not intended or likely to be caused, they would be convicted to culpable homicide as if they had caused the death of the intended person.

The idea behind this section is that one should not be exempted from taking liability for their action just because the victim was not the intended one. The fact that the accused had proceeded with a guilty mind of committing an offence and had taken appropriate action to do so, fulfils the requirement of actus reus and mens rea, which are the two components of criminal liability. Fulfilling this requirement, it should not matter that the victim was misplaced. Criminal liability cannot be excused.

In the above case, the appellant had not proceeded with the intention to kill the woman nor did he know that such an action would kill her. So, he lacks the mens rea needed to be held criminally liable for the crime of culpable homicide. Also, the prosecution has not even contended that he had intended to cause death to the woman when he had raised his hand to strike her. Relying on these circumstances, it can be argued that section 301 cannot be applied in this case. As a conviction under section 301 is necessary to be punished under section 304, naturally such a punishment cannot be given to the appellant. Section 304 too, holds the intention to kill or the knowledge that something is likely to kill a prerequisite for the application of the section. Without fulfilling such preconditions, the punishments recorded under the section cannot be handed out.

Section 80 shields one from any conviction under an offence which was an accident or a misfortune and was not intended, neither were the consequences known and was done with proper care and caution. The most important part of this section is that the action which caused the accident must have been legal. The underlying principle behind this is that one cannot be excused from facing liability for the

consequences of their wrongful actions. When one performs an action knowing full well that it is illegal, they cannot claim immunity from any untoward result coming out of the action. The appellant has sought immunity under section 80, claiming that the hitting of the child on head was an accident.

Then, there is the contention that the act would fall within the ambit of s.304A, which deals with negligent acts. The reason for that is, a negligent act is something that is caused due to the non- application of proper care and caution. It involves an absence of a criminal intention. However, in the above case, agreed that his intention was not to cause death, but his beating up of the other party including his raising his hands on the woman points out towards some wrong intention.

The definition for grievous hurt is provided for in section 320 of the Penal Code,1860. It lists down the various instances where one could be said to have caused grievous hurt. Section 320 eighthly provides

—’Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. ‘

Though the appellant might not have had any intention to kill, his actions were definitely voluntary and had caused the death of the child. So, his action caused a hurt which endangered the life of the child.

CONCLUSION:

The court first considered the question that at the moment that he hit the child, was he doing something intending or knowing to be likely to cause the death of another person? On relying on the facts and the arguments presented by both the sides, it came to the conclusion that while wanting to hit the woman, he was neither intended nor did he know that such an action would be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This suggests that his action does not fall within the ambit of section 301 Penal Code,1860. As a conviction under section 304 can only be effected for a crime under section 301, the appellant cannot be convicted under section 304 Penal Code,1860.

The court also agreed with the arguments of the respondents that the actions of the appellant were in its nature criminal and so, he cannot take the defence of negligence under section 304A IPC,1860.

The judge took into account a similar case, Empress v Sahai Rae¹, where a woman was struck violently while she was carrying her child. It was decided in that case that the accused had committed grievous hurt on the child. Relying on that case and also the fact that the woman in this case had not suffered any severe blow, he altered the conviction and reduced the sentence from one under section 301 to section 325 of Penal Code, 1860, which relates to grievous hurt.