Illegally obtained evidence is admissible

_________________________________________
Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
AIR 2014 SC 1106
_________________________________________
Constitution of India, Art.21- Complaint - Evidence Procured by illegal means - Tape
Recordings or Photographs - If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been
obtained - It is a settled legal proposition that even if any evidence is procured by improper or
illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved.

Hussain and another vs Union of India

_______________________________________
High court ought to have dispose of bail application within 30 days.
_______________________________________
Supreme Court issued guidelines on 9/3/2017
Guidelines;
(i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that
(a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week;
(b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally
concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in
custody be normally concluded within two years;
(c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by
the end of the year;
(d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit
thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the
sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released on
personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to
time;
(e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in
annual confidential reports.
(ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications filed
before them are decided as far as possible within one month and criminal appeals where
accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest;
(iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate
action plans for the subordinate courts;
(iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative
and judicial side from time to time;
(v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may be found
necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish
Uppal .
CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER
_______________________________________
Homicide means the killing of a man by man. The homicide may be lawful or unlawful.
Culpable homicide means death through human agency punishable by law. All murders are
culpable homicide but all culpable homicide is not murder. There are two classes of culpable
homicide :
1. Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder: It is known as simple murder.
2. Culpable homicide not amounting to Murder: There is necessarily a criminal or knowledge
in both. The difference does not lie in quality, it lies in the quantity or degree of criminality
closed by the act. In murder there is greater intention or knowledge than in culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. The culpable homicide is defined in sec. 299 of the IPC which is as
under:
CULPABLE HOMICIDE UNDER SEC.299 OF IPC
Whoever causes death by doing any act :-
(i) With the intention of causing death
(ii) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
(iii) With the knowledge that he is likely, by such act, to cause death commits the offence of
culpable homicide.
ILLUSTRATION
A knows that Z is behind a bush, B does not know it. A intending to cause or knowing that is
likely to cause Zs death induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be
guilty of no offence, but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
Here is the three explanations of this section which are as under :-
Explanation No. 1 : A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under
disorder decease, or bodily infirmity and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be
deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation No. 2 : Where death is caused by bodily injury the person who causes such
bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused death, although by resorting to proper remedy
and skilful treatment, the death might have been prevented.
Explanation No. 3 : The causing of death of a child in the mothers womb is not homicide,
but it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child if any part of that
child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely
born.
Case: Kedar Parsad V/s State 1992:
It was held by the court that the first accused was liable U/s 304 and the other U/s 324 for
causing hurt by dangerous weapon & the third U/s 323 for causing simple hurt only.
Case:- Ghansham V/s State of Maharashtra 1996 :
The accused husband stabbed his wife on chest resulting in her death on her refusal to have
sexual intercourse with him. It was held that the act was done in sheer frustration and anger
and so his liability was based on sec. 299(2) of IPC.
Case: Sarabjeet Singh Vs State 1994
The accused did not have good relation with complainant on account of sale transaction of
piece of land. He went to the house and assaulted the complainant and his wife. He also
picked up the infant child of the complainant and threw him down on the ground with force
as a result of which the child died some time later. The accused was held guilty under sec.
304 Part-II.
When culpable homicide amounts to murder :
According to sec.300 of IPC except the exceptions culpable homicide is murder, it the act by
which death is caused:
1. It is done with the intention of causing death or
2. It is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows that it is to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
3. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient ordinary cause of nature to cause death
4. If the person committed the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is like to cause death; and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring death or such injury as said above.
ILLUSTRATION:
A. A shoots Z with intention of killing him, Z dies in consequence, A commits murder.
B. A knowing that Z is labouring under such disease that a blow is likely to cause his death,
strike him with the intention of causing bodily injury, Z dies in consequences of blow. A is
guilty of murder.
C. A intention gives Z a sword cut sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary
course of nature. Z dies in consequences. Here A is guilty of murder although he may not
have intended to cause Zs death.
D. A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon in to a crowd of persons and kills one of
them. A is guilty of murder although he may not have had a pre-meditated design to kill any
particular individual.
Cases:-
Sridharan Sathesan V/s State of Keral 1995:-
There was a dispute between the accused and the deceased regarding the payment of money.
The accused who was a driver caused serious injuries by his mini bus and hit the deceased
with great speed in he middle portion of the body. Tyre marks were also found on the thighs
of the deceased. It was held that it was an intentional killing and Sec.300 (1) was applicable.
Case : State V/s Sadanand 1987 :-
Accused caused the first injury on the stomach of the deceased by Rampuri Knife with a
blade of more than six inches long. While the deceased started running away from the place
to save himself, the accused gave another blow by the same knife on his back. The injuries
caused his death. The SC held that the accused was guilty of murder and Sec.300 (3) was
applicable.
Case: Lakha Singh V/s state of Rajasthan:
The accused was held guilty on the basis of cause (3) of section 300 of IPC.
Case: Dulal Hazara V/s State 1987:
The accused tied the mouth and throat and hands of the deceased causing her death by
asphyxiation due to throttling, he was held guilty of murder. He knew that his act was so
imminently dangerous as to cause death probability.
Thus except the exceptions cases culpable homicide is murder, if the circumstances described
above any of the four clauses are present. In other words, only these four classes of culpable
homicide are murder and any other kind of culpable homicide continues to be culpable
homicides and does not become murder.
EXCEPTIONS OR WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER
Five exceptions have been provided u/s 300 wherein causing death does not amount to
murder. If any of these exceptions is held to be applicable in a case, the conviction of the
accused in that case would be for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In this sense,
therefore, these five exceptions are partial defences to murder thus following are the
exceptions:-
1. Grave and sudden provocation:
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offended, who deprived of the self control by grave
and sudden provocation, causes the death of a person, who gave the provocation or causes the
death of any other person by mistake or accident. Thus for the first exception following
things are necessary :-
a) There must be provocation.
b) Provocation must be grave and sudden.
c) By reason of such provocation the offender have been deprived of the power of self
control.
d) The death must be of that person who gave the provocation or any other person by mistake
or accident.
ILLUSTRATION: Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A on this sudden provocation
fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z who is near him
but out of sight. A kills Z here, A has not committed murder but merely culpable homicide.
Ajit Singh v/s State l991 : In this case the accused found his wife and a neighbours in a
compromising position and shot both of them dead. It was held that he was acting under
provocation and is liable for sudden provocation.
2. RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE;-
For the application of this exception the following conditions must be fulfilled :-
A. Act must be done in good health.
B. Act must be done in exercise of the right of private defence of person or property.
C. The person doing the act must have exceeded in his right given to him by law and thereby
caused death.
D. The act must be done without premeditation and without any intention of causing more
harm then was necessary for the purpose of such defence.
ILLUSTRATION:- Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt
to A. A draws out a pistol. A believing in good faith that he can by no other mean, prevent
himself from being horsewhipped shoots Z and kills. A has not committed murder but
culpable homicide.
Bahadur Singh v/s State 1993 :
The complainant party assaulted the accused person who were also armed with sharp
weapons like Gandasa by the use of which death caused. It was held they had excluded their
right of private defence in good faith and so exception Ns was available to them.
3. OFFENCE BY PUBLIC SERVANT OR PERSON AIDING PUBLIC SERVANT.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the following conditions are there :-
a. Offence must be committed by public servant or by some other person acting in the aid of a
public servant in advancement of public justice,
b. Public servant or such person must have exceeded the power given to him by law.
c. Death must be caused by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful &
necessary for discharge of his duty.
d. The act must have been done without any malafide intention towards the person whose
death is caused.
Case : Dakhi Singh V/s State 1955.:
It was held by the Court that he was entitled to have the benefit of this exception and so he
was liable only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
4. Death caused by sudden fight. For the application of this exception
The following conditions must be fulfilled :-
a. Death must be caused by sudden fight.
b. Fight must be without any pre-meditation.
c. It must be occur in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
d. It must be committed without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation :- It is immaterial in such cases where party offers the provocation or commits
the first assault.
Case :- State v/s Jodha Singh 1989:
A quarrel between accused and the deceased parties changed in to a sudden fight in which
weapon were used by both parties resulting in injuries on both sides and death of the
deceased. This exception was held to be applicable.
5. Death caused with the consent: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose
death is caused being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death
with his own consent.
Illustration :- A by instigation, voluntarily caused Z, ( a person under l8 years of age) to
commit suicide. Here on account of Zs death (he was incapable of giving consent to his own
death). A has, therefore abetted murder.
Case :- Dashrath Paswan V/s State 1958 :
The accused could not passed the Xth Class examination for three years in a row and become
frustrated and decided to commit suicide and informed his wife who asked him to kill her
first which he did, the exception was held to apply.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTION 299 AND 300 OF IPC
One of the most complex matters under the code is to distinguish between culpable homicide
and murder. The first real attempt in this regard was made in the case :-
Case : Reg. V/s. Govinda 1876 (Bom):
In this case the accused kicked his wife who was 15 years old and gave her a few blow on the
body with the result she fell down on the ground. Then he put one knee on her chest and
struck her a few more blow resulting in her death. The lower court convicted him of murder.
There were different opinions amongst the two judges of the High Court and consequently
the matter was referred to a third Judge, Justice Melvil, who held the accused guilty under
clause (2) of sec.299 for culpable homicide and sentenced him u/s 304 part I on the grounds
that the death was caused with the intention on the part of the accused to cause such bodily
injury as was likely to cause death.