Clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 IPC: Knowledge-Based Murder Liability in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence

Clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 IPC: Knowledge-Based Murder Liability in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence

1. Introduction

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) transforms “culpable homicide” under Section 299 into the graver offence of “murder” when one of four specified mental conditions is proved. While much scholarship focuses on the “thirdly” clause interpreted in Virsa Singh[6], the “fourthly” clause warrants equal attention. It attributes murder liability to an offender who, without any excuse, commits an act that he knows is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death[1]. This article undertakes a doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis of Clause Fourthly, tracing its evolution, delineating its boundaries vis-à-vis the adjacent clauses, and examining contemporary applications in Supreme Court and High Court decisions.

2. Statutory Framework and Conceptual Elements

2.1 Textual Ingredients

Four cumulative requisites emerge from the bare text of Clause Fourthly:

  1. An act by the accused;
  2. Knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous;
  3. The act will, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; and
  4. The act is committed without any excuse for incurring the risk.

2.2 Mens Rea: Knowledge v. Intention

Unlike Clause Thirdly, which demands an intention to inflict the very injury that proves fatal, Clause Fourthly pivots on a high degree of knowledge. The probability threshold (“must, in all probability”) approaches “practical certainty”[9], yet stops short of direct intent to kill.

2.3 Relationship with Exceptions to Section 300

Even when Clause Fourthly is prima facie satisfied, the accused may escape a murder conviction if one of the recognised exceptions—e.g., sudden fight without undue advantage (Exception 4)—is proved. The dialectic between Clause Fourthly and Exception 4 surfaces prominently in Sayaji Bankar[5] and Awadhesh Kumar[20].

3. Jurisprudential Evolution

3.1 Foundational Exposition: State of M.P. v. Ram Prasad

The Supreme Court in Ram Prasad (AIR 1968 SC 881) crystallised the principle that “callousness towards the result” coupled with a risk of death of the highest degree of probability attracts Clause Fourthly liability[2]. The Court emphasised an objective assessment of the dangerousness of the act and a subjective assessment of the offender’s knowledge.

3.2 Comparative Insight: Virsa Singh and the Clause Thirdly Paradigm

Although Virsa Singh interpreted Clause Thirdly, its four-step analytical matrix continues to influence Clause Fourthly adjudication by underscoring the separation between objective injury sufficiency and subjective mental state[6]. Subsequent decisions (Raj Pal[7]; Shankar Narayan[8]) reiterated this framework. Courts routinely contrast the intention-centric Thirdly clause with the knowledge-centric Fourthly clause to determine proper classification.

3.3 Fire and Kerosene Cases: Modern Supreme Court Trajectory

  • Santosh v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 7 SCC 641: Pouring kerosene and lighting a match was held “so imminently dangerous” that any average person would foresee death; conviction under Section 302 sustained despite lack of premeditation[3].
  • Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka (2021) 5 SCC 222: The Court reaffirmed that subsequent attempts to douse flames do not negate pre-existing knowledge; Clause Fourthly squarely applied[4].
  • Sayaji Bankar (2011) 14 SCC 477: The High Court had applied Clause Fourthly but the Supreme Court reduced the liability to Section 304 Part I by invoking Exception 4, illustrating the limiting power of statutory exceptions[5].

3.4 Fire-Arm and Other Dangerous Acts

High Court jurisprudence echoes the same principles for indiscriminate firing (Manoj Kumar[21]) and other inherently lethal acts. Courts assess whether the danger is imminent and death probable, not merely possible.

4. Analytical Framework for Courts

4.1 Step-by-Step Adjudicatory Test

  1. Identify the Act: Was the conduct inherently lethal (e.g., setting a person ablaze, firing at close range)?
  2. Objective Dangerousness: Would such conduct, in ordinary experience, probably cause death?
  3. Subjective Knowledge: Did the accused know of that probability? The nature of the weapon, manner of use, and context inform this inquiry.
  4. Absence of Excuse: Is the act unprotected by self-defence, accident, or any statutory exception?

4.2 Distinguishing From Lesser Forms of Homicide

Where the probability of death is merely likely but not most probable, or the offender acts in the heat of passion without cruelty, Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide) may suffice[15]. Conversely, where intent is clearly established, Clause Thirdly or Clause Firstly may be triggered.

4.3 Evidentiary Considerations

  • Dying Declarations: Reliability of oral or written declarations, as analysed in Shanmugam[10], often supplies direct evidence of the act’s nature.
  • Medical Testimony: Expert opinion on burn percentage, trajectory of bullets, or cumulative injuries (see Rayavarapu Punnayya[8]) helps ascertain probability of death.
  • Conduct Post-Offence: Later attempts to rescue the victim, while relevant to intention, do not per se negate knowledge[3][4].

5. Interplay with Collective Liability and Procedural Issues

Clause Fourthly frequently converges with Section 34 IPC where a common intention exists (Mansingh[11]). In group assaults, each participant may be liable if they shared knowledge of the imminently dangerous act. Procedurally, Section 164 CrPC statements and hostile witnesses impact proof, but the Supreme Court has cautioned against over-technical acquittals (Mansingh).

6. Contemporary Challenges and Scholarly Observations

Academic discourse critiques Clause Fourthly for its broad sweep and potential overlap with grievous hurt provisions (Sections 322–326 IPC). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court continues to uphold a high probability threshold, thereby preventing over-criminalisation. Calls for codified sentencing guidelines remain, especially in burn-injury cases where degrees of culpability vary widely.

7. Conclusion

Clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC operates as a vital doctrinal bridge between intention-based murder and lesser forms of homicide, anchoring liability in knowledge of imminent lethal danger. Judicial development—from Ram Prasad through Santosh and Nagabhushan—has clarified that where an accused consciously undertakes a risk that any rational person would deem fatal, murder conviction ensues unless a statutory exception applies. The clause thus preserves societal condemnation of recklessly lethal conduct while maintaining conceptual coherence within India’s layered homicide jurisprudence.

Footnotes

  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 300 “Fourthly”.
  2. State of M.P. v. Ram Prasad, AIR 1968 SC 881.
  3. Santosh v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 7 SCC 641.
  4. Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 5 SCC 222.
  5. Sayaji Hanmant Bankar v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 14 SCC 477.
  6. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465.
  7. Raj Pal v. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC —; see also Rajinder v. State of Haryana, (2006) — SCC —.
  8. State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382.
  9. Laxman v. State of M.P., (2006) — SCC —, para — (knowledge approximating practical certainty).
  10. Shanmugam alias Kulandaivelu v. State of T.N., (2002) 10 SCC 4.
  11. State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414.
  12. Awadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P., (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1441.
  13. Manoj Kumar v. State, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6225.
  14. For High Court illustrations: Lashuben Chaudhary v. State of Gujarat, 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 4465; Saravanakumar v. Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad —.
  15. Naran Bhikha Shiyani v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj —, analytical dicta on “likely” vs “probable”.