Provocation & Culpable Homicide: Army Jawan

Establishing the Sequence of Events and Initial Offences

The facts establish a clear sequence of events: X requested leave, it was denied, and in response, X fired two shots at Y. The first shot hit Y’s knee, causing him to fall, and the second hit his upper left arm. Y subsequently died ten days later. Initially, X committed the offence of ‘hurt’ as defined under Section 319 of the IPC. The first shot, hitting the knee, would likely qualify as ‘grievous hurt’ under Section 320 IPC, specifically clauses relating to emasculation or permanent disfigurement, or causing injury which endangers life or causes the sufferer to suffer severe bodily pain for a period of twenty days or upwards. The second shot also constitutes ‘hurt’ and potentially ‘grievous hurt’ depending on the severity of the injury to the arm.

Culpable Homicide and its Transformation into Murder

The crucial turning point is Y’s death ten days after the shooting. This transforms the initial offences into a case of ‘culpable homicide’ as defined under Section 299 of the IPC. To determine whether this culpable homicide is murder (Section 300 IPC), we must examine the specific conditions outlined in Section 299 and compare them to the facts.

Section 299 – Culpable Homicide

Section 299 states that culpable homicide is committed when a person causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or knowing that the act is likely to cause death, or knowing that it is highly probable that the act will cause death. The prosecution must prove that X either intended to cause Y’s death, or knew that his actions were likely to cause death.

Section 300 – Murder

Section 300 defines murder as culpable homicide of a particular kind. Several clauses define when culpable homicide becomes murder. Relevant clauses in this case include:

• Clause 2: When the act is done with the intention of causing death, or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and the bodily injury intended is caused.
• Clause 3: When the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, and there is no excuse for the act.

Given that X fired two shots at Y, the prosecution will argue that X intended to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, and that injury ultimately resulted in Y’s death. The fact that X fired a second shot *after* Y was already wounded strengthens the argument for intent or knowledge of likely death. The denial of leave, while potentially a provocation, does not automatically negate the intent or knowledge required for murder.

Relevant IPC Sections and Potential Charges

Possible Defenses and their Limitations

X might attempt to raise the defense of provocation due to the denial of leave. However, the provocation must be such as to deprive a reasonable man of his self-control. The denial of leave, while frustrating, is unlikely to meet this threshold, especially considering the deliberate and calculated nature of the shooting (two shots fired). The defense of ‘heat of passion’ is unlikely to succeed as there was a cooling period between the denial of leave and the act of shooting. Furthermore, the fact that X fired a second shot after the first suggests premeditation and a lack of impulsive action.

Liability of X

Based on the facts and legal principles, X is primarily liable for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC, read with Section 300 (Clause 2 or 3). He may also be convicted for the offences of grievous hurt and hurt, but these would likely merge into the more serious charge of murder. The prosecution will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that X either intended to cause Y’s death or knew that his actions were likely to cause death. The evidence of firing two shots, the nature of the injuries, and the subsequent death of Y strongly support a conviction for murder.