Step 1: Background.
Section 299 IPC defines culpable homicide, and Section 300 defines murder. The distinction between the two was clarified in the case of Reg v. Govinda (1876) by Justice Melvill.
Step 2: Key observation.
In this case, the court explained that culpable homicide is the genus, and murder is its species. Every murder is culpable homicide, but not every culpable homicide is murder.
Step 3: Analysis of options.
- (A) Wrong: Guruchand Gope is not related to this distinction.
- (B) Correct: Reg v. Govinda is the landmark case clarifying Sections 299 and 300.
- (C) Wrong: Reg v. Hayward deals with other issues.
- (D) Wrong: No such reported case as "Govind v. Reg."
Step 4: Conclusion.
The case of Reg v. Govinda is the authority on the distinction between culpable homicide and murder.
A glance over all the Sections related to extortion would reveal a clear distinction being carried out between the actual commission of extortion and the process of putting a person in fear for the purpose of committing extortion. Section 383 defines extortion, the punishment therefor is given in Section 384. Sections 386 and 388 provide for an aggravated form of extortion. These sections deal with the actual commission of an act of extortion, whereas Sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC seek to punish for an act committed for the purpose of extortion even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered. It is in the process of committing an offence that a person is put in fear of injury, death or grievous hurt. Section 387 IPC provides for a stage prior to committing extortion, which is putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt ’in order to commit extortion’, similar to Section 385 IPC. Hence, Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of 385 IPC, not 384 IPC. Having deliberated upon the offence of extortion and its forms, we proceed to analyze the essentials of both Sections, i.e.,383 and 387 IPC, the High Court dealt with.
(Extracted from Balaji Traders v. State of UP, 2025 INSC 806)