Section 391 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code will be applicable in cases where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person approximates to practical certainty. Illustrate the above statement.

Understanding Sections 391 and 396 of the IPC

Section 391 (Robbery): Defines robbery as the taking of property from a person with the use of force or threat of force, or by causing fear of instant death or of grievous hurt. The punishment for robbery is imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and also fine.

Section 396 (Murder during robbery or to prevent robbery): This section states that when murder is committed in the course of, or for the purpose of, robbery, or in order to prevent robbery, the offender shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

The Concept of ‘Practical Certainty’

The key differentiating factor between culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 300 IPC) and murder under Section 396 lies in the offender’s knowledge. The law doesn’t require the offender to *intend* the death, but rather to have knowledge that death is a practically certain consequence of their actions. ‘Practical certainty’ implies a high degree of probability, almost equivalent to a foregone conclusion. This is a higher threshold than ‘foreseeability’ or ‘likelihood’.

Illustrating the Application with Case Law

Case 1: Mahabir Prasad v. State of Bihar (1969) AIR 1969 SC 789

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that for Section 396 to apply, the death must be a direct result of the robbery, and the accused must have either intended to cause death or known that death would be a probable consequence of their actions. The Court emphasized that mere participation in the robbery is not enough; there must be a causal link between the robbery and the death, coupled with the requisite knowledge.

Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Kashinath (1979) AIR 1979 SC 1698

This case clarified that if the death occurs due to an accidental injury inflicted during the robbery, and the accused had no knowledge that such an injury would likely cause death, Section 396 would not apply. The focus remains on the offender’s mental state – did they know death was practically certain?

Scenarios and their Legal Implications

• Scenario 1: Planned Robbery with Intent to Kill: If robbers plan a robbery with the explicit intention to kill anyone who resists, Section 396 will undoubtedly apply. The intent to kill establishes the necessary mens rea.
• Scenario 2: Robbery with Foreseeable Risk of Death: If robbers use weapons known to be lethal and engage in a violent confrontation, knowing that death is a highly probable outcome, Section 396 will apply. Even without a specific intent to kill, the knowledge of practical certainty is sufficient.
• Scenario 3: Accidental Death During Robbery: If a person dies during a robbery due to an unforeseen accident (e.g., a heart attack triggered by fear), and the robbers had no reason to believe death was likely, Section 396 will not apply. The offence may be robbery with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Distinguishing between Section 302 (Murder) and Section 396

Section 302 (Murder)	Section 396 (Murder during Robbery)
Requires intention to cause death, knowledge of likely death, or acts with knowledge that it will cause death.	Requires murder committed during or in furtherance of robbery, or to prevent robbery. Crucially, the offender must have knowledge that death is a practically certain consequence.
The act of causing death is the primary focus.	The context of the robbery is paramount; the death must be linked to the robbery and the offender must have the requisite knowledge.
Punishment: Death or Life Imprisonment.	Punishment: Death or Life Imprisonment + Fine.