1

LAW OF CRIMES II COURSE LLB 2ND SEMESTER 2nd Shift

UNIT I PREPERED BY: MR. MOHAMAD YOUSUF DAR

The objectives of this lecture are:

 To understand the meaning of Culpable Homicide.

 To study the Principle of liability for Killing.
 To study in what circumstances Culpable Homicide does amount to murder and
 To study when Culpable Homicide does not amount to murder .

Meaning of Culpable Homicide

The word homicide is derived from two Latin words - homo and caedere. Homo means human
and caedere means killing by a human. Homicide means killing of a human being by another
human being. A homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes situations where
a person who has caused the death of another and cannot be blamed for his death. For example,
in exercising the right of private defence or in other situations explained in Chapter IV of IPC
covering General Exceptions.
Lawful homicide may further be classified into;-
i. Excusable homicide
ii. Justiciable homicide

i. Excusable homicide : this

includes homicides which are committed with no criminal intention and knowledge.(
for example section 82,83,84 and 85 of IPC )

ii. Justiciable homicide: a

homicide is considered in law to be justified , if death is caused :-
a. Section 76 of IPC
b. Section 79 IPC
c. Section 77 IPC
d. Section 78 IPC
e. Section 81 IPC
f. Sections 96 to 106 IPC
Unlawful homicide means where the killing of another human is not excusable or justified by
law. Culpable Homicide is in this category. Culpable means blame worthy. Thus, Culpable
Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being in a blameworthy or criminal
manner.
An unlawful homicide may be classified into different categories according to the nature and
gravity of offence and its heinousness in order to attach a suitable punishment for each type:-
a. Culpable homicide S299, 301
Ipc
b. Murder S300 ipc
2

c. Culpable homicide not

amounting to murder Section 300 , Exception 1 to 5.
d. Death by negligence 304 A
e. Dowry Death S304 B
f. Abetment and attempt to
commit of suicide , sections 305,306,and 309
g. Attempt to murder and attempt
to commit culpable homicide 307 and 308

The distinguishing features of these different categories of unlawful homicides are the degree of
intention, knowledge, or recklessness with which a particular homicide is committed.

Principle of liability for Killing:

The determination of criminal liability for killing another human being is a matter of utmost
gravity, and presents questions of great difficulty and intricacy.

To fix criminal liability, the causal connection between the act and death must be direct
and distinct and though not necessarily immediate, it must not be too remote.

For instance in JUTZI-JOHNSON,2001 the Unites States Court of Appeal, Seventh Circuit held
that the jail authorities vis-à-vis the Govt of US is not liable to Estate of Federal inmate for
damages who hanged himself, alleging jail staff was negligent in failing to discover that inmate
has nervous condition and failed to take steps to deal with it the court held that there was no
causal connection between Federal Jail Staff’s negligence in failing to recognize inmates
obsessive scratching and picking at sores on skin as indicative of nervous condition requiring
medical or psychiatric attention and inmates suicide by hanging.
These conditions are not fulfilled:-
1. If the connection between the act and the death is obscure(hidden)or
2. If there are concurrent contributory causes which made it impossible to to say that the act
in question was a substantial cause, and
3. If the connection is broken by the intervention of the subsequent causes.
Whether in particular cases the conditions are or are not fulfilled is always a question of
fact dependent upon circumstances.

Culpable homicide:
The penal code has first defined culpable homicide simpliciter (299) termed as manslaughter
under English law which is genius , and then murder (300) which is species of culpable
homicide.

3 Illustrations and 3 Explanations

299 illustrations a, b and c
3

299 explanations 1 2 and 3

Section 299 of IPC defines Culpable Homicide as follows –

Section 299 - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that
he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of Culpable Homicide.

Illustrations -

a) A lays sticks and turfs(grass and roots) over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing
death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the
ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of
Culpable Homicide.
b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it
to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no
offence; but A has committed the offence of Culpable Homicide.

c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A
not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not
guilty of Culpable Homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an
act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Explanation 1 - A person, who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to
have caused his death.
Explanation 2 - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily
injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and
skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3 - The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it
may amount to Culpa ble Homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child
has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Based upon the above definition, the following are the essential elements of Culpable Homicide -

1. Whoever casuses death , death meanes Death o f a human being is caused - It is

required that the death of a human being is caused. However, it does not include the death
of an unborn child unless any part of that child is brought forth as is clear from
Explanation 3 appended to s 299, but the person will not be set free, he would be
punishable for carrying miscarriage either under section 312 or 315 depending on the
gravity of injury.
4

The act of causing death amounts to culpable homicide if any part of that child has been
brought forth , though the child may not have breathed or been completely born

2. By doing an act - Death may be caused by any act for example, by poisoning or by
hurting with a weapon. Here act includes even on omission of an act for which one is
obligated by law to do. For example, if a doctor has a required injection in his hand and
he still does not give it to the dying patient and if the patient dies, the doctor is
responsible.

Section 33 omission also and death caused by words is also an act

3. Intention or Knowledge - There must be an intention of any of the following -

1. Intention of causing death - The doer of the act must have intended to cause
death. As seen in Illustration 1, the doer wanted or expected someone to die. It is
important to note that intention of causing death does not necessarily mean
intention of causing death of the person who actually died. If a person does an act
with an intention of killing B but A is killed instead, he is still considered to have
the intention. Illustration a
2. Intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death - The
intention of the offender may not have been to cause death but only an injury that
is likely to cause the death of the injured. For example, A might intended only to
hit on the skull of a person so as to make him unconscious, but the person dies. In
this case, the intention of the person was only to cause an injury but the injury is
such that it is likely to cause death of the person. Thus, he is guilty of Culpable
Homicide. However, if A hits B with a broken glass. A did not know that B was
hemophilic. B bleeds to death. A is not guilty of Culpable Homicide but only of
grievous hurt because he neither had an intention to kill B nor he had any
intention to cause any bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
3. Or the act must have been done with the knowledge that such an act may cause
death - When a person does an act which he knows that it has a high probability to
cause death, he is responsible for the death which is caused as a result of the act.
For example, A knows that loosening the brakes of a vehicle has a high
probability of causing death of someone. If B rides such a bike and if he dies, A
will be responsible for B's death. In Jamaluddin's case 1892, the accused, while
exorcising a spirit from the body of a girl beat her so much that she died. They
were held guilty of Culpable Homicide.
Sometimes gross Negligence may amount to knowledge - Sometimes even
negligence is considered as knowledge. In Kangla 1898, the accused struck a man
whom he believed was not a human being but something supernatural. However,
he did not take any steps to satisfy himself that the person was not a human being
and was thus grossly negligent and was held guilty of Culpable Homicide.

Murder (When Culpable Homicide amounts to Murder)

Murder is a type of Culpable Homicide where culpability of the accused is quite more than in a
5

mere Culpable Homicide. Section 300, says that Culpable Homicide is Murder if the act by
which the death is caused is done

1. with the intention of causing death

2. or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person,
3. or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death.
4. It is also Murder if the person committing the act knows that the act is so dangerous that
it will cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death in all probability and he has
no valid reason for doing that act.

Illustrations -
A shoots Z with an intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence.

A commits Murder.

A intentionally gives Z a sword cut that sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Z
dies because of the cut.

A commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill Z.

A without any excuse fires a loaded canon on a crowd. One person dies because of it.

A commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill that person.

Thus, it can be seen that Murder is very similar to Culpable Homicide and many a times it is
difficult to differentiate between them. J Melvill in the case of R vs Govinda 1876
Bom. analyzed both in the following table -

Culpable Homicide Murder

A person commits Culpable
A person commits Murder if the act by which death is
Homicide if the act by which
caused is done -
death is caused is done -
1. with the intention of causing
1. with the intention of causing death.
death.
2. with an intention to cause such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to
2. with an intention to cause such
whom the harm is caused.
bodily injury as is likely to cause
3. with an intention of causing bodily injury to any person
death.
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
3. with the knowledge that such an 4. With the knowledge that the act is so imminently
6

act is likely to cause death. dangerous that it must in all probability cause death.

Based on this table, he pointed out the difference - when death is caused due to bodily injury, it
is the probability of death due to that injury that determines whether it is Culpable Homicide or
Murder. If death is only likely it is Culpable Homicide, if death is highly probable, it is Murder.

In Augustine Saldanha vs State of Karnataka LJ 2003, SC deliberated on the difference of

Culpable Homicide and Murder. SC observed that in the scheme of the IPC Culpable Homicide
is genus and Murder its specie. All 'Murder' is 'Culpable Homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking
generally, 'Culpable Homicide' sans 'special characteristics of Murder is Culpable Homicide not
amounting to Murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the
generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of Culpable Homicide. The first is,
what may be called, 'Culpable Homicide of the first degree'. This is the greatest form of
Culpable Homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'Murder'. The second may be termed as
'Culpable Homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section
304. Then, there is 'Culpable Homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of
Culpable Homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments
provided for the three grades. Culpable Homicide of this degree is punishable under the second
part of Section 304.

It further observed that the academic distinction between 'Murder' and 'Culpable Homicide not
amounting to Murder' has always vexed the Courts. They tried to remove confusion through the
following table -

Culpable Homicide Murder

A person commits Culpable
Subject to certain exceptions , Culpable Homicide is
Homicide if the act by which
Murder if the act by which death is caused is done -
death is caused is done -
INTENTION
(a) with the intention of causing
1. with the intention of causing death; or
death; or
2. with an intention to cause such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to
(b) with an intention to cause such
whom the harm is caused.
bodily injury as is likely to cause
3. with an intention of causing bodily injury to any person
death.
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
KNOWLEDGE
(c) with the knowledge that such 4. With the knowledge that the act is so imminently
an act is likely to cause death. dangerous that it must in all probability cause death.

Thus, it boils down to the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding a particular victim in a
particular state being in such condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is
7

likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not, in the ordinary
circumstances, be sufficient to cause death. In such a case, intention to cause death is not an
essential requirement. Only the intention of causing such injury coupled with the knowledge of
the offender that such injury is likely to cause death, is enough to term it as Murder.
Situations where Culpable Homicide does not amount to Murder
Section 300 also specifies certain situations when the Murder is considered as Culpable
Homicide not amounting to Murder. These are -
(Short Details)

1. If the offender does an act that causes death because of grave and sudden provocation by
the other.
2. If the offender causes death while exceeding the right to private defense in good faith.
3. If the offender is a public servant and does an act that he, in good faith, believes to be
lawful.
4. If the act happens in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
5. If the deceased is above 18 and the death is caused by his own consent.

(Full Details)
Exception I - Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of
self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos -

1. That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse
for killing or doing harm to any person.
2. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
3. That the provocations not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.

Explanation-Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence
from amounting to Murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations

1. A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills,

Y, Z's child. This is Murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child,
and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act
caused by the provocation.
2. Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y,
neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of
sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed Murder, but merely Culpable Homicide.
3. A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the
arrest, and kills Z. This Murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done
by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
8

4. A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of
A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these
words, and kills Z. This is Murder.
5. A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of
a to prevent him form doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in
consequence, and kills Z. This is Murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a
thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
6. Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to
take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that
purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only Culpable Homicide,
but A is guilty of Murder.

The Supreme Court in K.M Nanavati v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC605 has
extensively discussed the law relating to provocation in India.( Reasonable man’s test)

Exception 2 - Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of
the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and
causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without
premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of
such defence.

Illustration - Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A

draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other
means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed Murder,
but only Culpable Homicide.

Exception 3 - Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding
a public servant acting or the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by
law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and
necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the
person whose death is caused.

Exception 4 - Culpable Homicide is not Murder if it is committed without premeditation in a

sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation-It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the
first assault.
In a very recent case of Byvarapu Raju vs State of AP 2007, SC held that in a Murder case,
there cannot be any general rule to specify whether the quarrel between the accused and the
deceased was due to a sudden provocation or was premeditated. "It is a question of fact and
whether a quarrel is sudden or not, must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case,"
9

a bench of judges Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain observed while reducing to 10 years the life
imprisonment of a man accused of killing his father. The bench passed the ruling while
upholding an appeal filed by one Byvarapu Raju who challenged the life sentence imposed on
him by a session's court and later affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for killing his
'drunkard' father.

Exception 5 - Culpable Homicide is not Murder when the person whose death is caused, being
above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Illustration - A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to

commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own
death; A has therefore abetted Murder.

Study the following case laws:

1.Reg v. Govinda, ILR (1876) 1 Bom. 342

2. Abdul Waheed Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2002) 7 SCC 175.

3. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465

4. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605.

5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 and AIR 1982 SC 1325

6. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 957.

7. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2004 SC 4091.

Thank you