Question

Ramu is suffering from disease of the heart. Rahul his heir rushes into his room and shouts in his ear "your house has been destroyed by fire" intending thereby to kill Ramu. Ramu dies of the shock. Here Rahul is liable for the offence of

• A. Attempt to murder
• B. Murder
• C. Culpable homicide
• D. Abetment to murder

Hint:

To solve questions on murder/culpable homicide, follow a two-step process. First, check if the act is culpable homicide under Section 299 (is there intention or knowledge?). Second, check if this culpable homicide is elevated to murder under Section 300 (does it fit one of the four clauses and not the exceptions?).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The classification here turns on three linked questions: did death occur, was it caused by Rahul's act, and was it accompanied by intention to kill.

1. Did death occur, and was it caused by Rahul? Yes, Ramu died of the shock caused by Rahul's shout, and Explanation 1 to Section 299 treats accelerating the death of someone with a known disorder, by causing them harm, as causing death.
2. Was there intention to kill? Yes, the facts state Rahul acted intending thereby to kill Ramu, directly satisfying Clause 1 of Section 300, culpable homicide is murder when the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death.
3. Ruling out lesser or different categories: Attempt is ruled out because death actually resulted; abetment is ruled out because Rahul acted directly rather than inducing someone else; and plain culpable homicide not amounting to murder is too broad once the specific intention to kill under Clause 1 is established.

Since death, causation, and intention to kill are all established without any exception applying, the correct answer is Murder.

Answer 2

Another way to confirm the answer is to check whether any of the five exceptions to Section 300 could reduce this from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and to compare with a variant of the facts lacking intent.

1. Grave and sudden provocation, private defence, public servant exceeding powers, sudden fight, or consent: none of the recognised exceptions to Section 300 are present on these facts. Rahul acted deliberately and with premeditation to exploit Ramu's known heart condition; there is no provocation from Ramu, no element of self-defence, and no sudden fight. So no exception reduces the offence.
2. Comparing with a variant lacking intent: had Rahul merely known that shouting bad news could be dangerous to a heart patient, without actually intending to kill him, the offence would likely be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under the knowledge limb of Section 299 rather than Clause 1 of Section 300.
3. But the actual facts state Rahul's specific intention was to kill Ramu, which takes the case out of that lesser category and squarely into Clause 1 of Section 300.
4. Attempt and abetment are inapplicable for the same reasons noted elsewhere: death actually occurred, and Rahul acted directly rather than through another person.

With no applicable exception and clear intention to kill established on the facts, this is murder in its full sense.

Therefore, the correct answer is Murder.