Department of Law

Assignment-1
On

Murder

Under the Guidance Submitted by :

of : Kirandeep Singh
LLM 1 sem
st

MS. Rajni Rani 23282248012

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I Express my sincere gratitude to the Desh Bhagat University, Mandi
Gobindgarh for giving me the opportunity to work on Role of the Prosecutor
& the judicial officer in Investigation during my LLM 1st sem.

I would like to thank MS. Rajni Rani, Asst. Professor, Department of Law,
Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh for their kind support.

I also owe my sincerest gratitude towards MS. Rajni Rani for her valuable
advice & healthy criticism throughout my work which helped me immensely
to complete my work successfully.

I would also like to thank my parents who helped & supported me. I would
also like to thank everyone who has knowingly & unknowingly helped me
throughout my training. Last but not least, a word of thanks for the authors of
all those books & papers which I have consulted during my project work as
well as for preparing the report.

At the end thanks to the Almighty

Kirandeep Singh
LLM 1st Sem
23282248012
 Table of Contents

Introduction

Murder (Section 300)

o Ingredients of Murder
o Illustrations

Culpable homicide (Section 299)

o Illustration
o Cases

Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC where culpable homicide is not considered as murder

o Sudden and grave provocation

o Illustration
o Cases

When the person exceeds his right to private defence

o Illustration
o Case

Culpable homicide in case of Public Servant

o Illustration
o Case

Sudden Fight

o Case
o Consent
o Illustration
  Culpable Homicide in the exercise of good faith
o Illustration

Culpable Homicide by causing the death of the person other than the person whose
death was intended (Section 301)

o Case
o Causing Death by negligence (Section 304A)
o Cases

Dowry Death (Section 304 B)

Attempt to murder (Section 307)

o Illustrations

Attempt to commit Culpable Homicide (Section 308)

o Illustration
o Punishment

Punishment for murder (Section 302)

Punishment for Culpable Homicide (Section 304)

Punishment for murder by life-convict (Section 303)

Conviction of a Pregnant Woman

Conviction of a Minor

Sentence to Co-accused

Landmark Judgments

o Jag Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1972

o Article 19
o Triveniben v. State of Gujarat and Ors, 1989
 o Sher Singh v. the State of Punjab,1983
o Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1979
o Raju Jagdish Paswan v. The State of Maharashtra, 2019

Most famous murder cases you need to know about

o Arushi Talwar case

o Jessica Lal murder case
o Pradyum Thakur murder case
o Sheena Bora murder case
o Pramod Mahajan murder case
o Amar Singh Chamkila murder case
o Sunanda Pushkar murder case
o Neeraj Grover murder case
o Sharath murder case

Conclusion

References
 Introduction
Section 299 and Section 300 of Indian Penal Code deal with murder. All murders are culpable
homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. Culpable Homicide is genus and murder is
its species, thus, murder is a culpable homicide but all culpable homicide are not murder.

The word homicide is derived from Latin where homo means man while the meaning of cide is I
cut. Thus, the killing of a man by a man is the meaning of homicide. Culpable homicide is
punishable by law. Homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Culpable homicide is further divided
into two categories:

 Culpable homicide amounting to murder.

 Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

 Murder (Section 300)

Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this Act, culpable
homicide is considered as murder if:

 The act is committed with an intention to cause death.

 The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender has
knowledge that it would result in death.
 The person has the knowledge that his act is dangerous and would cause death or bodily
injury but still commits the act, this would amount to murder.

 Ingredients of Murder
 Causing death: There should be an intention of causing death,
 Doing an act: There should be an intention to cause such bodily injury that is likely to
cause death, or
 The act must be done: with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause the death of
another.

o Illustrations

A shoots W with an intention of killing him. As a result, W dies in that consequence,

murder is committed by A.
D intentionally gives a sword-cut to R that was sufficient to cause the death of anyone in
the ordinary course of nature. As a consequence, R dies. Here, D is guilty of murder
though he didn’t intend to cause R’s death.

 Culpable homicide (Section 299)

Culpable homicide is covered under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide
means the act done by a person which causes the death of another with an intention of causing
death or causing such bodily injury that is likely to cause death, or he has knowledge that the act
committed by him is likely to cause death, is said to commit the offence of Culpable homicide.

o Illustration
X induces Y to put the fire at the place having the knowledge that Z was sitting behind a
covered area. Here, X is liable for the offence of culpable homicide, as he had prior
knowledge that Z was present in that area and his actions will lead to Z’s death. Here,
intention makes X liable to culpable homicide.
Y is diagnosed with a terminal illness and to live from day to day he needs certain drugs.
Z confines Y in a room and prevents him from taking his medication. Here, Z is guilty
of culpable homicide.

 Cases
In the case of Reg. v. Govinda, 1876 the accused had knocked down his wife, kept a knee on her
chest and gave two to three violent blows with the closed fist on her face. This act produced
extraversion of blood on her brain and afterwards, the wife died due to this. The act was not
committed with the intention of causing death and the bodily injury was not sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was liable to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

The difference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If the intention is present the
crime is said to be committed under Section 300 of IPC. If the intention is absent, then the crime
is dealt under section 300 of IPC.

 Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC where

culpable homicide is not considered as
murder
 Sudden and grave provocation
If the offender is deprived of the power of self-control due to sudden and grave provocation, and
his act causes the death of the person who provoked or death of any other person by accident or
mistake.

This exception is subject to a certain proviso, that is:

  That the provocation is not sought or is voluntarily provoked by the offender to be used
as an excuse for killing or causing any harm to the person.
 Thatthe provocation is not given by anything that is done in obedience to the law, or by a
public servant while exercising the powers lawfully of a public servant.
 That the provocation is not done while doing any lawful exercise of the right of private
defence.

o Illustration
A is given grave and sudden provocation by C. A fires at C as a result of this provocation. A
didn’t intend or have knowledge that his act is likely to kill C, who was out of A’s sight. A kills
C. A is not liable to murder but is liable to culpable homicide.

 Cases
 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1961
In this case, the Supreme Court had extensively explained the law relating to provocation in
India. It was observed by the Court:

 The test of “sudden and grave provocation” is whether a reasonable man, who belongs
to the same society as the accused, is placed in the situation in which the accused was
placed would have been so provoked as to lose his self-control.
 Under certain circumstances, words and gestures may also lead to sudden and grave
provocation to an accused, so as to bring his act under an exception.
 The mental background of the victim can be taken into consideration, taking account of
his previous act to ascertain whether the subsequent act leads to sudden and grave
provocation for committing the offence.
 The fatal blow clearly should trace the influence of passion that arises from the sudden
and grave provocation. It should not be after the provocation has been cooled down
due to lapse of time, otherwise, it will give room and scope to the accused for altering
the evidence.
 Muthu v. state of Tamil Nadu, 2007
ln this case, it was held by the Supreme Court that constant harassment might deprive the power
of self-control, amounting to sudden and grave provocation.

 When the person exceeds his right to private defence

Where the act is committed to defend them from further harm. If the accused intentionally
exceeds his right to private defence, then he is liable to murder. If it is unintentional, then the
accused will be liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
 o Illustration
X attempts to flog Y, not in a manner to cause grievous hurt to Y. A pistol is drawn out
by Y, X persists the assault. Y believes that he had no way to prevent himself from
being flogged by X, Y fires at X. X is liable to culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.

 Case
 Nathan v. State of Madras, 1972
In this case, the landlord was trying forcefully to evict the accused. The accused killed the
landlord while exercising his right to private defence. There was no fear of death to the accused
as the deceased was not holding any deadly weapon that could have caused grievous hurt or
death of the accused. The deceased had no intention to kill the accused, thus, the accused
exceeded his right of private defence. The accused was liable to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

 Culpable homicide in case of Public Servant

The act is done by a public servant who is acting to promote public justice. If the public servant
commits an act which is necessary to discharge his duty as is done in good faith and he believes
it to be lawful.

o Illustration
 If the police officer goes to arrest a person, the person tries to run away and during that
incident, if the police officer shoots the person, the police officer will not be guilty of
murder.

 Case
 Dakhi Singh v. State, 1955
In this case, the appellant was the constable of Railway Protection Force, while he was on duty
he killed a fireman unintentionally, while he was firing bullet shots to catch the thief. The
constable was entitled to benefit under this section section’s benefit.

 Sudden Fight
The sudden fight is when the fight is unexpected or premeditated. Both the parties don’t have
any intention to kill or cause the death of another. The fact that which party had assaulted or
offered a provocation first is not important.
  Case
Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018

In this case, the appellant was extremely angry when he got to know that his calf had come to the
deceased place. The appellant started abusing the deceased, when it was tried to stop him, the
appellant fired at the deceased. The deceased was unarmed at that time, thus the appellant had an
intention to kill the deceased, hence, he was held liable to murder.

 Consent
If the act is committed with the consent of the victim. The consent should be unconditional,
unequivocal and without any sort of reservation.

o Illustration
A instigated F who was under 18 years of age, to commit suicide. F was incapable of
giving consent to his own death. Therefore, A is guilty of murder.
X killed his stepfather Y, who was old and infirm. X killed Y with his consent. This was
punishable under Section 304.

 Culpable Homicide in the exercise of good faith

Culpable homicide does not amount to murder if it is done in exercise of good faith in order to
protect the private or public property. If the act committed by a person exceeds its power
provided by law and kills someone in order to save someone or something, then the act does not
amount to murder.

o Illustration
Y attempts to horsewhip Z, not to cause grievous hurt to Z. Z takes out a pistol, Y persists to the
assault. Z in good faith in order to prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots at Y, such
that he dies because of that. Z is guilty of culpable homicide and not murder.

The act is punishable under Section 302 of IPC if it does not fall under the exception of Section
300 of IPC.

 Culpable Homicide by causing the death of the person other than

the person whose death was intended (Section 301)
Under Section 301 of IPC, Culpable Homicide amounts to murder even if the person who was
not intended to die, dies due to the act committed by the perpetrator, though he had planned to
murder someone else.
In other words, there is no distinction in the eyes of law between cases where the death is caused
to an intended person or whether it results in the death of an unintended person.

 Case
Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat, 1994

In this case, the accused persons had freely fired on the fleeing complainant party in a
commercial locality in the course of an altercation. In the first shot, the person was injured, while
a ten-year-old son of a complainant was dead in the 2nd shot. It was held by the Supreme Court
that the child death was intentional and hence applies Section 300 read with Section 301 of IPC.

 Causing Death by negligence (Section 304A)

Under Section 304A of IPC, if someone causes the death of another due to rash or negligent act
that does not amount to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment which can
extend up to two years or with fine or both.

 Cases
 State of Karnataka v. Mohd. Ismail, 1988
In this case, a 28-year-old motorcyclist had pushed an 85-year-old man from behind. The old
man died on spot due to head injuries attained at the time of the accident. The death was a result
of rash and negligent conduct.

 M.H. Lokre v. State of Maharashtra, 1971

In this case, the appellant who was not driving rashly was not held guilty under this section for
causing the death of the person who came under the wheels of the vehicle while suddenly
crossing the road. A man however vigilant and slowly he might be driving he cannot avert an
accident if a person suddenly comes in front of his vehicle while suddenly crossing the road.

 Dowry Death (Section 304 B)

Section 304 B of IPC states that if within seven years of marriage a woman dies by a bodily
injury or burns, or it is revealed that before the marriage the woman was exposed to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or by any other relative of her husband, in connection to the demand
of dowry then the death of the woman will be considered as the dowry death.

The punishment for Dowry death is imprisonment for a minimum of seven years or a maximum
of imprisonment for life.

 Attempt to murder (Section 307)

Section 307 of IPC deals with an attempt to murder. Whoever commits an act with an intention
or knowledge and under such circumstances, that causes the death of the person would be held
guilty of murder and shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that can extend up to ten
years, and shall be liable to fine, and if that act causes hurt to a person, the offender shall be
liable to imprisonment for life, or such other punishment as decided by the Court of law.

o Illustrations
R shoots S with an intention to kill her. If under such circumstances death has ensued, R
will be guilty of murder.
 P, with an intention to cause death to Q, who is a child of seven years of age, leaves him
in a deserted land. P commits an offence under this section, though the death of the
child is not ensured.

 Attempt to commit Culpable Homicide

(Section 308)
Under Section 308 of IPC, whoever commits an act with such intention or such knowledge and
under such circumstances, and if that act causes death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder and shall be punished with imprisonment that can extend up to three
years, or with fine or both. If the act causes hurt to any person, the offender shall be punished
with imprisonment that can extend to seven years or with fine or both.

o Illustration
A due to sudden and grave provocation fires at Z. If Z dies due to this incident, A will be
guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

 Punishment
 Punishment for murder (Section 302)
The punishment for murder is provided under Section 302 of IPC. Under this section whoever
commits murder is punished with:

 Death
 Life imprisonment
 Fine
  Punishment for Culpable Homicide (Section 304)
Culpable homicide is not murder if it falls under any one of the five exceptions given under
Section 300. Section 304 of IPC describes the punishments for culpable homicide not amounting
to murder, that is:

 Imprisonment for life,

 Imprisonment for either description of a term extending up to ten years,
 Fine.

 Punishment for murder by life-convict (Section 303)

Life convict is a person who is found guilty of a crime and is sentenced to life imprisonment by
the Court. Section 303 of IPC provides that if any person commits murder who is sentenced with
life imprisonment shall be punishable to death. Section 303 is only applicable to the person who
is convicted under section 302 read with Section 34 or Section 302 read with Section 149.
Section 303 makes capital punishment necessary for the person who is convicted for life
imprisonment commits murder.

It was held by the Court that if a person is released by remission who was undergoing
imprisonment for life for murder, is not considered under the sentence of imprisonment for life
any longer. If the murder is committed during the period of remission, it will not be considered
while giving punishment under Section 303 of IPC. Thus, the accused shall not be given
imprisonment for life.

In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab, 1983 the constitutional validity of Section 303 of IPC
was questioned. Section 303 was held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional as it was held by the
Court that mandatory death penalty to a life convict is arbitrary and unreasonable, due to:

 There is already a lot of stress that a life convict is exposed to in jail.

 No justification is found for prescribing a mandatory death sentence for the offence of
murder that is committed inside or outside the prison by the person under life
imprisonment.
A standard mandatory sentence in the form of death fails to take into account the facts
and circumstances of each act.

 Conviction of a Pregnant Woman

Section 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the postponement of capital
sentences given to a pregnant woman. Under this Section, if the pregnant woman is convicted,
the High Court can postpone the execution of the sentence or reduce the sentence to life
imprisonment.
Under this section, the rights of an unborn child are protected. The main aim of this section is to
protect the child from being killed who didn’t make any mistake. The pregnancy should be
proved with proper medical examination and reports.

 Conviction of a Minor
According to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the individuals
who were under 18 years of age, when the crime was committed cannot be executed. The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was replaced by The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The amended Act
allows the person from 16 to 18 years of age to be tried as an adult if they are found to be liable
for any heinous crime like rape and murder.

 Sentence to Co-accused
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides confession of the co-accused. The persons who
are accused of the same crime shall be awarded the same amount of imprisonment. The
confession made co-accused holds a proper evidentiary value. It is ensured by the parity
principle that the sentence should be similar for the same offenders or persons who are convicted
of the same crime. Fairness and equality are ensured by this principle while awarding the
sentences.

Landmark Judgments
o Jag Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1972
In this case, there was a murder which came up after the amendment of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in 1973, where the death penalty was no longer a mandatory sentence for murder and
it became subject to the discretion of the Court. The arguments were raised regarding the
constitutionality of a death penalty, it was on the ground that a vide discretionary power vested
with the Courts as there were no guidelines or standards. It was held that it violated Article
14, Article 19 and Article 21.

It was held by the Supreme Court that the Right to life was not a part of Article 19 and the death
could not be called as unreasonable or opposed to public policy since it was the punishment
which was part of the law even before the commencement and the legislature would be presumed
to know its existence. And since it was not removed, it could be assumed that the legislature did
not think of it as unreasonable.

Article 14 could hardly be invoked in matters involving judicial discretion, as each case would
be peculiar to facts and circumstances. The discretion given to Courts to award a death sentence
cannot be termed aa unguided. The Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the detailed
procedure about when a death sentence is imposed and following the procedure established by
law cannot be held as unconstitutional.
  Article 19
In this case, writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional
validity of allowing the death penalty as an alternative to punishment for murder.

The significant changes from Jagmohan case to Bachan case was that the scope of Article 19
and Article 21 was expanded by the interpretation given in the Maneka Gandhi’s case. By this
time India had become a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was
held by the Court that the Covenant did not outlaw the death penalty.

If the freedom mentioned under Article 19 are infringed, then Article 19 can be invoked. Since
the right to life is not covered under Article 19, it cannot be invoked to determine the
constitutionality of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, that provides death penalty as an
alternative punishment to murder. Merely on the ground that the death penalty remotely affects
the freedom under Article 19, the death penalty cannot be held to be unconstitutional.

The Court held that a pre-sentencing hearing introduced in The Code of Criminal Procedure was
a mandatory requirement. It was made necessary to consider the circumstances of both crimes as
well as the criminal.

 Triveniben v. State of Gujarat and Ors, 1989

In this case, the appellant was given a death sentence. He was the main accused for conspiring
and by impersonating a customs officer had murdered several persons, by abducting under the
guise of interrogating officer in order to rob and then murder them. For eight years the accused
was kept in solitary confinement. The appeal was that Article 21 was violated as there was a
delay in execution.

It was held that the sentence imposed should be carried out under procedure established by law.
If there is a prolonged delay irrespective of the cause in carrying out the execution, it has a
dehumanizing effect, which violates Article 21 by unjustly depriving a person of his life and
liberty.

If there is a delay beyond two years, it entitles a prisoner for quashing of a death sentence.

o Sher Singh v. the State of Punjab,1983

In this case, it was held that delay can be a ground for invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. There is no binding rule that the delay entitles a prisoner to quash the death sentence.

o Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1979

In this case, it was discussed about the special situations to be considered before awarding the
death penalty. It was held by the Court that not only the nature of the crime but also the various
factors of criminals before awarding the death penalty.
 o Raju Jagdish Paswan v. The State of Maharashtra, 2019
In this case, the Trial Court had awarded the death sentence to the appellant, who committed rape
of a nine-year-old kid. The same sentence was awarded by the High Court. On appeal in the
Supreme Court, the punishment was reduced, since the death can only be awarded in rarest of
rare cases. It was held by the Supreme Court that life imprisonment is a rule while the death
sentence is an exception. The death penalty was not awarded by the Supreme Court in this case
for reasons:

 There was no pre-planning for the murder.

 The person who committed the act was not a continuous threat to society.
 There was a lack of evidence by the State to prove that the person cannot be rehabilitated
and reformed.
 The appellant was just 22 years of age while committing the crime.
 The basic principle is that human life is valuable and a death sentence should be awarded
only when it is mandatory if there is no option for any other punishment and even in
cases where the range of crime is heinous.

Most famous murder cases you need to know

about
o Arushi Talwar case
The 14-year-old Arushi was murdered on 16th May 2008 along with Hemraj Banjade who was
45 years old then. There were a lot of suspects on the list of the accused including Arushi’s
parents. This case received a lot of media coverage and aroused public interest.

For a very long time, Arushi’s parents had been held under custody. Still, it is not clear whether
it was Arushi’s parents or the other two servants that worked in her house. Though Arushi’s
parents have been acquitted, yet no one knows who killed Ayushi and Hemraj.

o Jessica Lal murder case

The case got highlighted with the heading ‘No one killed Jessica’ in the year 1999. The
eyewitnesses had amnesia and there was hardly anyone who came forward to give an account of
how an aspiring model was shot dead. Later people came to know that it was the businessman
Manu Sharma who was refused by Jessica to serve liquor had shot her dead.

o Pradyum Thakur murder case

A student of II class, Pradyum Thakur was found dead in the washroom of Ryan’s International
School in Gurgaon. The kid who didn’t cause any harm was thought to have been killed over a
situation of sexual assault by a bus conductor, who got arrested but later it was found that the
murder was committed by a student of 11th year, whom the Court said that he will be tried as an
adult.

o Sheena Bora murder case

Sheena Bora’s mother Indrani Mukherjea was the real culprit who had planned the murder of her
daughter Sheena Bora. It was claimed by Indrani Mukherjea that Sheena was her sister and she
never admitted to having two children. The limelight was brought to the Murky Financial
dealings of Indrani Mukherjea and her husband Peter Mukherjea.

o Pramod Mahajan murder case

Pramod Mahajan was a politician in the Bharatiya Janata Party. He was killed in a broad daylight
inside his house. April 2006 Pramod was shot dead by his brother, Pravin. After killing his
brother, Pravin walked to the nearest police station to confess that he had shot his brother
Pramod. Pravin was sentenced to life imprisonment and later on died due to brain haemorrhage.

o Amar Singh Chamkila murder case

Amar Singh was a popular Punjabi singer, musician, songwriter and composer. Amar Singh
along with his wife and two members of the band were killed on 8th March 1988, by a gang of
unknown youths. No one got arrested even when they got killed in front of so many people and
in broad daylight.

o Sunanda Pushkar murder case

Wife of a former Indian diplomat and famous politician Shashi Tharoor’s wife, Sunanda Pushkar
was a renowned businesswoman. She was killed in Delhi’s Leela Palace’s hotel room. It is
suggested in the report that when Shashi Tharoor saw Sunanda Pushkar, he assumed she was
asleep and when she did not wake up, Shashi Tharoor informed the police.

She died after a day she had accused Pakistani journalist Mehr Tarar of stalking her husband on
twitter. According to the post-mortem report, it was concluded that she had committed suicide.
But the report from doctors of All India Medical Institute said that the death was due to drug
overdose and she had injury marks on her body.

o Neeraj Grover murder case

This case received a lot of attention due to how fatal it was. His body was firstly chopped into
pieces and then later stuffed in three garbage bags and put on fire in the forest.

Neeraj’s friend Maria Susairaj had filed a missing complaint in the police station. She was later
found to be involved in the killing. It was discovered that Maria’s boyfriend in a fit of rage had
killed Neeraj suspecting that Maria was having an affair with Neeraj.
 o Sharath murder case
Sharath was a 19 years old son of an Income-tax officer who was killed in Bangalore. Sharath’s
body was found on the outskirts of the city near Ramohalli lake with his hands tied together. It
turned out that the kidnappers had strangled Sharath to death and later on the same day they had
dumped his body.

The police found out that the kidnappers were friends of Sharath and his close friend Vishal was
the one who had planned this murder and abduction to clear off the loan.

 Conclusion
The Court awards death penalty only in rarest situations only in cases where the accused is a
threat to the society the Court understands the value of life. The Court has all the rights and
power to reduce the punishment.

References
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/626019/

 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/cri_m.htm

 https://www.lawnn.com/murder-section-300-indian-penal-code/

 https://lawsikho.com/course/certificate-criminal-litigation-trial-
advocacy
 https://www.project39a.com/landmark-judgements

 http://lawtimesjournal.in/murder/

 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/codeofcivilprocedure/
index.php?Title=Code%20of%20Civil%20Procedure,%201908
 https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/11-most-mysterious-and-
sensational-cases-of-murder-in-india-334096.html
 https://theprint.in/report/pradyuman-thakur-murder-connecting-dots/
20077/
 https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/police-files-
charge-sheet-in-sunanda-pushkar-death-case-in-delhi-court/
articleshow/64159153.cms
 https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2017/sep/23/
friend-plotted-the-kidnap-and-killing-of-i-t-officials-son-
1661452.html