Multiple choice

Facts: One Bherun and his father were on inimical terms with the appellants. On 29 June 1961, Behrun was going towards his fields when he was caught hold of by Anda and Ropa (appellants). They dragged him inside a house and beat him severally. His arms and legs were smashed and many bruises and legs were smashed and many bruises and lacerated wounds were caused on his person. The doctor who conducted the autopsy opined that injuries and that all the injuries collectively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Issue: Are the appellants guilty of murder or culpable homicide.

  1. They are not guilty because the doctor who conducted autopsy said that the deceased diet of shock.

  2. They are guilty of culpable homicide. Because there is no indication of use of lethal weapon.

  3. They are not guilty of murder because intension is missing.

  4. It's a clear cut case of murder. Because severely beating the deceased and smashing his legs is clear cut indication of the presence of intension.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

The appellants dragged Bherun into a house and severely beat him, smashing his arms and legs and causing multiple bruises and lacerated wounds. The doctor opined that the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death. The deliberate act of dragging him inside a house to beat him, combined with the severity and targeted nature of the assault (smashing limbs), clearly indicates the intention to cause death. This goes beyond merely causing bodily injury and constitutes murder.

Keep practicing — related questions