According to Sec 300 of the I.P.C.

, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which

death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or if it is done with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
death; or bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death; or the person committing knows the act to be so imminently
dangerous that it must in all probability cause death.

The distinguishing feature of Mens Rea requisite under clause (2) of sec. 300 is
knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a
peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to
be fatal, notwithstanding that such harm would not, in the ordinary way of nature be
sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition.

In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab9 , Vivian Bose, J., explained that after establishing
that a bodily injury is present, it is sought to be established that there was an
intention to inflict that particular injury. The question is not whether the accused
intended to kill, but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question and once
the existence of the injury is proved, the intention to cause it will be presumed
unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion.

After the intention is proved, it must be proved that that the injury of the type
described was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, which
means that death is the most probable result of in the ordinary course of nature.
Massive internal bleeding and haemorrhaging in the abdominal cavity and
cranium has very high probability of causing death

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or preparation for any fact in
issue or relevant fact. Motive is that factor which moves or induces a person to act
in a certain manner. Gangaram v. Emp.,22 Cr LJ 529, Law of Evidence, Chief Justice
M.Monir, Vol 1, 16th Ed, Universal Law Publishing, Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 2007 SC 3050..here Dowry Demand, cruelty.

It is not necessary in every case that a weapon of attack must have to be recovered
in a case of murder and non- recovery of weapon of attack would not affect the
other evidence if found to be reliable (Mangal honsada v. state (1985) Cr LJ 1589
(ori)(DB))

Nature of Injury and extent of damage it was caused on the deceased . It was held
in the circumstances of the case, the appeallant had requisite intention to cause
death( Patamjit v. state of Haryana(1996) 11 SCC 143)

The cuboid bone is one of the seven tarsal bones located on the lateral (outer) side of the foot.
Thisbone is cube-shaped and connects the foot and the ankle
In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 21st Edition, at page 312 it is observed
that haemorrhage within the cranium may be (a) extradural, (b) subdural, (c) subarachnoid and
(d) intracerebral. Extradural haemorrhage is mostly traumatic and occurs between the skull and
the dura mater, and is caused by rupture of the middle meningeal artery, diploic veins or
dural venous sinuses. It is observed that the symptoms of extradural haemorrhage takes some
hours to develop in many cases and the lucid interval that often follows the head injury may be
deceptive. It is further observed on page 313 that in answer to certain questions, a meticulous
and detailed autopsy is essential. In respect of certain medico legal questions, it is observed
that a slight injury on the head may cause cerebral haemorrhage in a person previously
predisposed to it from age or disease, and that the head may be injured during a fall from
cerebral haemorrhage caused by disease. Moreover, it is observed that it is possible for the
diseased cerebral anteries to rupture from mere excitement caused by alcohol or struggle.

Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act onus shifted upon the accused to show as to how
the wife received injuries

All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused while recording his statement
under Section 313 Cr. P.C

Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code

37
[34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.When a criminal
act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such
persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]

Trial Court's Findings

6. Trial Court had visited the spot and put its report at Exhibit 105. At the time of
judgment, the Trial Court referred to the evidence as well as its report and firstly
considered the fact if it could have been a case of accidental fall. It noticed that the
window opened in three pieces with sliding glass and breadth of wall of the window was
11 and window was at a height of 310 from the floor. The Court concluded that
probability of person accidentally falling from such window while leaning does not arise.
It was observed that in the wall which was having 11 width there was Aluminum bracket
with three sliding glasses fitted. The Aluminum bracket was in the center and it
was not possible for a person to sit there. Thus, the Court ruled out accident. Then it
considered whether Shashibala could have committed suicide or was it homicidal
death. The Court considered the evidence of doctor where there was opinion of scuffle
before death and found that evidence of doctor will have to be accepted that the death
was homicidal. It was observed that the accidental death is ruled out and there was no
circumstance to show that there could be case of suicide and the evidence was showing
that it was homicidal death. The Court then considered as to who was responsible for
the homicidal death and for that purpose considered certain circumstances. First
circumstance considered was the phone call made by the deceased from Aurangabad
that the accused no. 1 is roaming around with a girl and address given in the hotel is
fictitious and that she was not safe. It was observed that there was contradiction in the
deposition of the complainant that he received such phone call as F.I.R said that his wife
had received the phone call. The Court observed that this evidence of complainant
need not be read in isolation and other evidence on record does show that accused no.
3 was admittedly residing in the same room alongwith accused no. 1 and was through
out with the couple and so information received by the complainant and his wife
was not false. Second circumstance considered was that although the couple had
come for honeymoon the accused no. 3 was all the time with them and so there is doubt
regarding true intentions of the accused no. 1. The third circumstance considered was
that the accused had not given any plausible explanation as to how Shashibala fell.
Considering the evidence, the trial Court held the accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty for
causing homicidal death of Shashibala. The Court rejected the defence that if motive
is not proved, the accused could not be held guilty. It was considered that the intention
of accused nos. 1 and 3 was to cause death of Shashibala and so both of them were
liable for murder. It has been observed that the body was pushed and thrown out of the
window which led to death of Shashibala and intention of accused nos. 1 and 3 was to
cause death. They were liable to be punished under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.

Arguments

The victim was sitting on the window and fell down accidentally. If accused no. 1 wanted to kill
his wife, he would not have unnecessarily kept accused no. 3 present. There was no evidence
of cries, beating or shouting though Receptionist and room boy were there below and in the
neighbouring rooms, there were other passengers. The argument is that the evidence needs to
be properly appreciated and that the evidence shows that it is a case of accidental fall and
death. Trial Court relied on conjectures and presence of accused no. 3 could not be faulted with
as it is matter of choice of the couple if they wanted or not presence of third person. Cruelty
is not proved.
the evidence of doctor shows injuries to the head which clearly were due to fall. The
medical evidence clearly shows that the head injuries suffered in the fall were sufficient
in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The evidence of doctor is that the external
injuries Nos. 13 and 14 correspond to internal injury no. 20 which have been recorded
under column 20 Thorax at sub column (a), (f) and (g). The evidence is that
Shashibala had contusions over her left mammary region and there was oval bluish red
contusion below left nipple. According to doctor, this could have been possible by
fists or blows or due to hard impact. The evidence of doctor shows that by single fall all
the injuries as found on the person of Shashibala were not likely unless some
hindrance in the path comes and the body deviates while falling. In the cross
examination of doctor, it was asked and he mentioned that injury nos. 13 and 14 of
column no. 17 and injury mentioned in column no. 20(a) are possible by fall if the body
comes in contact with wide surface, rough and uneven having oval pr.ojections. Doctor
was then asked whether a lady standing with the elbow near a window, if she slips and
falls down and while falling down her body comes in contact with projected part of wall
and then she falls, whether in such circumstances such injuries are possible. The doctor
mentioned that it is remotely possible, adding that, in such circumstances, there should
have been evidence of sliding abrasions on the chest and stomach in addition to other
injuries. Looking to such evidence of doctor, the accused cannot derive any benefit as
neither the body nor the Chajja appear to have had such sliding marks. We have
already mentioned that the record does not show that there were any marks on the
Chajja below the window. Again if the person was to strike against Chajja or scrape
against Chajja which was 1 broad, the person would bounce to more distance and it
is unlikely that the person would fall so close on the ground as is appearing in the
present matter. The doctor was categorical that injury nos. 13 and 14 are not abrasions
and it is not possible thpat all injuries could be caused if a person falls from window.
Doctor insisted that especially injury Nos. 8, 9, 13 and 14 are not possible. The
evidence is that there was localised finger nail injuries which could be seen in column
no. 17 as injury Nos. 7 and 8.

17. What appears from the evidence of doctor is that in addition to the injuries which
Shashibala suffered due to fall, there were other injuries, which could not be associated
with the single fall. The doctor is categorical that looking to the injuries on the left side of
chest and internal injuries to the heart it was homicidal death. The doctor has deposed
that contusion of heart could cause immediate death because of distortion in heart
function. Thus, the injuries at Sr. Nos. 13 and 14 raise questions as to what was the
condition of Shashibala when she came down two floors from the window. As the doctor
has deposed that contusion of heart could also cause immediate death because of
distortion in heart function, she may or may not have been in a condition to help herself
when she came down from the window to the ground, in which fall she suffered injuries
to her head and also had other injuries not associated to fall as recorded by the doctor.
It is apparent that Shashibala had contusion of heart which could have been caused by
even fist blows and she also suffered injuries in the fall. Evidence of doctor is that
Shashibala had injuries indicating scuffle. We accept the evidence of doctor. Looking to
medical and other evidence, we find that Shashibala suffered culpable homicide.