Manslaughter and Culpable Homicide Under The Ipc

A DISSERTATION
MANSLAUGHTER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE UNDER

THE IPC
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award

of degree of Master of Laws
Under the supervision of: Submitted by:
Dr. ………….. ……….
Assistant Professor Roll No.: ……………

Jagannath University Jagannath University
JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY
DELHI NCR, BAHADURGARH
2022-23
i
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Sourabh is submitting her dissertation entitled “Manslaughter and
culpable homicide under the IPC” for the award of the Degree of Master of Law (LL.M) to
the, JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY and has worked under my guidance and supervision. The
present study is a result of his genuine and bonafied research on the subject. He has carried
out of this work carefully, diligently and sincerely. As the work is complete and he fulfills the
requirements for the submission of the dissertation. It is hereby recommended that it may be
accepted for evaluation by the university.
Dr. …………….
Prof.
Faculty of Law
University Name
ii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the Dissertation titled “Manslaughter and culpable homicide under
the IPC” is submitted by Name, a student of LL.M Final Year) in the partial fulfilment of
requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Law (LL.M) is based on my original
research work and this work has been done under the supervision and guidance of Dr.
……………., Law Faculty, University name.
PLACE- Name
DATE- LL.M (Final year)
Reg. No.:
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am thankful to FACULTY OF LAW, JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY for providing me an

opportunity to write a dissertation and providing me with the appropriate guidance and
material to convert my ideas into this dissertation.
I am fortunate to be provided with an opportunity to write my dissertation under the kind

supervision of Dr. ……………., FACULTY OF LAW, JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY. This
dissertation would not have been possible without her valuable inputs, honest remarks and
earnest efforts and support to guide me throughout the drafting of the dissertation. I would
like to extend my sincere gratitude to her for giving me her valuable time to view my
research.
I would like to thank my family, whose life-long love and support, encouragement, patience,
and belief in me ultimately made this dissertation possible. I owe my loving and caring
parents who always stood by me to recognize my potential. Their silent prayers, aesthetic
love, and affection, support, and steel belief in my capabilities have enabled me to make this
endeavor a successful one.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my friends and seniors for their review and
honest remarks given to me regarding the dissertation.
Above all, I sincerely acknowledge my gratitude to almighty God for his compassion and his
bountiful blessings to complete this venture.
Working on the dissertation has been one of the most enriching experiences for me and has
resulted in amassment of the bulk of highly relevant and functional information.
Dated: Name
iv
LIST OF CONTENT
Title Page i
Certificate ii
Declaration iii
Acknowledgement iv
List of abbreviations viii-ix
List of cases x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1-13
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Lawful and Unlawful Homicide 4
1.2 Culpable Homicide 4
1.3 Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder (Section 299 IPC) 5
1.4 Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder 5
1.5 Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1862 6
1.6 Essential Ingredients 7
1.7 Through the perspective of Sec 299 and Sec 300 IPC 8
1.8 Section 304 of IPC 9
1.9 Section 302 of IPC 9
1.10 Section 299 IPC (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder) 10
1.11 Section 300 IPC (Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder) 10
1.12 Major differences between culpable homicide and murder 11
2. Chapter Scheme 13
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 14-22
2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Lawful and unlawful Homicide 14
2.2.1 Lawful Homicide 14
2.2.2 Unlawful Homicides 15
2.3.1 Illustrations Of Culpable Homicides 16
2.3.2 Forms of Culpable Homicide 17
2.3.3 Classification of Culpable Homicide 17
2.3.4 Essential elements of Culpable Homicide 18
2.3.5 Circumstances of Culpable Homicide 19
2.3.6 Mental Element in Culpable Homicide 21
2.4 Manslaughter 21
2.5 Conclusion 22
CHAPTER 3
INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH WITH RESPECT TO
CULPABLE HOMICIDE 23-31
3.1 Introduction 23
3.2 Interpretation Of The Word Intention 24
3.3 Determination Of Intention With Respect To Culpable Homicide 26
v
3.4 Recommendation 30
3.5 Conclusion 31
CHAPTER 4
CULPABLE HOMICIDE : DETAILED ANALYSIS 32-39
4.1 Introduction 32
4.2 Types of homicide 32
4.3 Meaning of culpable homicide 32
4.4 Conditions 33
4.5 Landmark cases on Culpable homicide 36
4.6 Conclusion 39
CHAPTER 5
MURDER – DETAILED ANALYSIS 40-61
5.1 Introduction 40
5.2 Exception 1- Grave and Sudden Provocation 42
5.3 Sustained Provocation (A court formulated exception under Exception 1) 43
5.4 Sustained Provocation and Battered Women in India 43
5.5 Exception 2 - Private defense 44
5.6 Exception 3 - Exercise of Legal Power 45
5.7 Exception 4 - Without Premeditation to a Sudden Fight 45
5.8 Exception 5 - Consensual Homicide 46
5.9 Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder v. Murder 47
5.10 Distinction between section 304 part 1 and part 2 50
5.11 Case Laws 51
5.12 Conclusion 61
CHAPTER 6
PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER 62-72
6.1 Introduction 62
6.2 Culpable Homicide/ Manslaughter 62
6.3 Culpable Homicide – Essential Elements 64
6.4 Circumstances For Culpable Homicide 65
6.5 Principle of Criminal Liability For Negligence: Adomado 69
6.5 Rash and Negligent Act 71
6.6 Conclusion 72
CHAPTER 7
CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER: AN ANALYSIS 73-94
7.1 Murder 73
7.3 Murder's Ingredients 74
7.4 Difference between Culpable Homicide & Murder 75
7.5 An Extremely Sudden And Grave Provocation 76
7.6 Rule Of Felony Murder 80
7.7 Culpable Homicide And Murder: An Analysis 83
7.8 Conclusion 93
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 95-113
BIBLIOGRAPHY 114-116
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADR Association of Democratic Reforms

AIR All India Reporter
APHC Andhra Pradesh High Court
BHC Bombay High Court
CARA Central Adoption Resource Authority
CEDAW United Nations Convention on Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination against Women, 1979
CHRI Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr PC Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
CSWB Central Social Welfare Board
DIR Domestic Incident Report
DMC Divorce and Matrimonial Cases
DPA Dowry Prohibition Act
DSWO District Social Welfare Officer
DVA Domestic Violence Act
FCC Family Counselling Centre
FIR First Information Report
HAMA Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
HAS Hindu Succession Act, 1956
HMA Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
IBR Indian bar Review
IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860
IPV Intimate Partner Violence
KLJ Karnataka Law Journal
LCWRI Lawyers Collective (Women’s Rights Initiative)
MLJ Maharashtra Law Journal
MPLJ Madhya Pradesh Law Journal
NCPCR National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
RMK RashtriyaMahilaKhosh
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
NCW National Commission for Women
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NHFS National Family Health survey
NHRC National Human Rights Commission
NIPCCD National Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development
NMEW National Mission for Empowerment of Women
PMLA ParivarikMahilaLokAdalat
PO Protection Officers
PWDVA Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
PWDVR Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006
RP Act Representation of People’s Act 1951
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SEWA The Self-Employed Women’s Association
SP Service Provider
vii
UNDHR United Nations declaration on Human Rights
UNGA United Nations Security Council
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
WRPE Women’s Role in Planned Economy
WTO World Trade Organization
viii
LIST OF CASES
1. State v Sikora 44 N.J. 453, 210 a. 2d. 193 (1965)

2. Morcha v state of Rajasthan, [1970] AIR 80 (SC)
3. R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 30
4. Thabo Meli v R. [1954] 1 All E.R. 373
5. Ashok Kumar Barik v State of Orissa, [1992] CrLJ 1849 (Ori)
6. State of Haryana v Pala and Ors, [1996] AIR 2962 (SC)
7. Amir and Anr v State of Madhya Pradesh, [2004] CriLJ3686
8. Sher Muhammad v The state, [2004] YLR 1096
9. Rex v. Lesbini, [1914] 3 K.B. 1116
10. Holmes v DPP, [1946] A.C. 588 (L.R.)
11. K.M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra,[1962] AIR 605 (SC)
12. Kabiraj Tudu v State of Assam [1994] CrLJ 432 (Gau)
13. Thomas v State of Kerala, [1992] CrLJ 581 (Ker)
14. Ram Lubhya v State of Punjab, [1989] 3 Crimes 295 (Pun)
15. R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 30
16. Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753.
17. R v. Whitehouse, The Times, Dec. 10, 1999 (CA)
18. Katta Ramadu v. State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 2428
19. Jagriti Devi v. State of H.P., AIR 2009 SC 2869.
20. Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2004) 10 SCC 794.
21. Empress v. Idu Beg, (1881) ILR 3 All 776.
22. The Empress v. Ganesh Dooley & Gopi Dooley (1880) ILR 5 Cal 351
23. Palani Goudan v. Emperor [1919 ILR 547 (Mad)]
24. Moti Singh & Anr. v. Sate of UP 1964 AIR 900, 1964 SCR(1) 688
25. Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1519: (1976)Cri LJ 1186(SC).
26. Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1876
27. Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana 15 SCC 753: 2008(6) SCALE 433.
28. Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh: AIR 2009 SC 2869.
29. Mohd Arif v. the State of Uttaranchal 11 SCC 497 : (2009) Cr LJ 2789 (SC).
30. Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 SCC 317: AIR 2016 SC 447.
31. Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 289.
32. Bhakua Kampa v. State of Orissa, 1996 CrLJ 350 (Ori)
33. Chinnam Chandraiah v. State of AP, AIR 1994 SC 959
34. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
35. Deena@Deena Dayal Etc. Etc v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1155
36. Dan Behari v. State of U.P., 2003 CrLJ 4959
37. Viswanath Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1994 CrLJ 1037
38. Shankarlal Kachrabhai and Others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260.
39. Kashi Ram v. State of M.P., AIR 2001 SC 2902.
40. Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy, (1912) 22 MLJ 333
41. Ballan v. The State, AIR 1955 All 626.
42. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 9 SCC 462.
43. Putti Lal v. State, 1969 CrLJ 531.
44. Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1979 SC 1519.
45. Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 55
46. Sarabjeet Singh and Others v. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 529.
47. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463.
ix
48. Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 709
49. Sundaramurthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1990 SC 2007
50. S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 917.
51. Pularu v. State of M.P., AIR 1993 SC 1375.
52. State of Karnataka v. R. Varadraju, (1995) 2 CrLJ 1429 (Kant).
53. Ghansham v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 CrLJ 27 (Bom)
54. Roop Ram v. Stat of U.P., 1995 CrLJ 3499 (All).
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction
Murder is basically a criminal homicide that essentially has malice aforethought. Therefore,
the murderer has undergone all the stages of malice aforethought: clear intention to kill or
cause reckless bodily harm and enacting the crime as a result of the indifferent attitude to the
value of human life. In brief, murder is the unjustified killing of another. As a result, this
crime is considered a felony.
In fact, to qualify a certain killing as a murder, it should be unlawful, meaning not legally
accepted and committed with malicious aforethought. Usually, to perform a certain murder,
there has to be proper planning of the crime.
At present, two types of murders are distinguished, namely, first-degree murder and second-
degree murder and open murder according to their statute. Therefore, it is by considering
these statutes one can mark the distinctions between the first and second-degree murder.
First-Degree Murder
First-degree murder applies to homicide killings that are more dangerous and more
aggravated in addition to having amalice aforethought. Moreover, they are morally
blameworthy than others. This is also known as ‘capital murder’.
Second-Degree Murder
Killings involving malice that don’t amount to first-degree murder tend to fall under second-
degree murder. This murder is also referred to as the common law murder (a public wrong).
However, the criteria to specify a murder as a capital murder or not may vary according to the
law of the specific state. Examples of both these murder types may include rape, assault,
strangling, stabbing, poisoning, etc.
Nevertheless, the murder of any degree is always characterized by an intentional killing that
has proper premeditation. As a consequence, it is graded as a felony and can be a capital
crime punishable in many states by the death penalty.
1
What is Manslaughter
In contrast to murder, manslaughter falls into the category of homicide crimes that do not
have any malice aforethought. By definition, manslaughter means ‘the unlawful killing of a
person without malice or prior thought”. Therefore, manslaughter is most often happens as a
result of ‘the heat of passion’. The perpetrator does not have any intention to take the life of
another at all, unlike during a murder. Even though this is considered a serious crime, the
punishment for this is less severe than punishment to murder. However, the punishment may
vary according to the different jurisdictions of the varied states.
There are basically three categories of manslaughter namely, voluntary manslaughter,

involuntary manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter happens when a person voluntarily kills another even though he
clearly didn’t have any prior plan or intention to kill the victim. Often it is this manslaughter
type that takes place as a result of the ‘heat of the passion’. (For example, an angry husband
killing his wife after catching her red-handed with another man).
Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is when the perpetrator’s unintentional actions or his or her

reckless behaviour (usually while committing a minor crime) caused the death of the victim.
Usually the perpetrator’s negligence, reckless behaviour, etc. are the most common causes for
these types of crimes. (A person was trying to pickpocket another, and after being caught, he
violently hits the victim with a nearby object in order to escape, but eventually, the victim
died out of internal haemorrhage, a doctor engaging in illegal abortion and the patient dies
due to anaesthesia overdose)
Vehicular Manslaughter
Vehicular manslaughter is usually referred to as killing another while illegally, negligently, or

recklessly while operating a motor vehicle. Therefore, this type of crime is primarily
associated with deaths caused by reckless driving. (Hitting another vehicle and killing the
passenger since the perpetrator was texting while driving and lost the control of the vehicle)
2
Evidently, there is no prior planning or premeditation which defines the malice aforethought
in all these types of manslaughter. The punishments for these types of manslaughter differ
according to the severity of the crimes. Nevertheless, the gravity of the overall punishment
given in manslaughter is comparatively not less severe than the punishment given in murder
cases.
Similarity Between Murder and Manslaughter
Both these crimes fall under criminal homicides.
Difference Between Murder and Manslaughter
Definition
The murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thus, there
is essentially the malice aforethought whereas manslaughter is unlawful killing of another
essentially without malice aforethought.
Murder differs from voluntary manslaughter in that the latter’s perpetrator had no prior intent
to kill the victim, and probably acted in the heat of passion.
Types
Murder typically consists of first-degree murder and second-degree murder while

manslaughter consists of three types such as voluntary manslaughter, involuntary
manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter.
Punishment
The overall punishment for murder is the death penalty or imprisonment for a longer period
without the possibility of parole. However; the punishments may also vary according to the
type of murder and the jurisdiction of the murderer. (For example in the US, it is either death
penalty or imprisonment of not less than 7 1/2 years and even more than 17 years.)
The usual punishment for manslaughter carries no minimum sentence, except when it is
committed with a firearm, in which case the minimum sentence is four years in prison.
Sentences vary according to the state and gravity of the crime.
3
Homicide
Homicide is a term which originates from the Latin term ‘Homo’ means human and ‘caedere’
means killing. The act of homicide is an act that has been a part of human life since day 1.
Early men used to kill each other for food or creating dominance, the kings used to perform
homicide to win territories and now people kill each other in the sway of jealousy, greed, etc.
Homicide is one of the most grievous act a person can commit as it is the highest order of
bodily injury inflicted on a human being hence that’s why regulations regarding Homicide
are really grave, for instance, culprits are usually sentenced to life imprisonment or the death
penalty as these are the most extreme punishments given by the judiciary.
In India homicide is divided into two forms- Culpable Homicide (Section 299 of the Indian
Penal Code) and Culpable Homicide amounting to murder (Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code). Both of these have a very minimal difference but these differences prove to be very
crucial for the legal system as the delivery of a fair judgment is dependent on these
differences.
1.1 Lawful and Unlawful Homicide
A culprit in a case of Homicide cannot always be culpable. This derives the notion of lawful
homicide where the accused had a valid reason to commit the crime. In these cases, the
person will not tend to be tried by the law and can also be exempted from the charges.
These can include death caused in self-defence or by mistake of fact or there was a bonafide
execution of the law etc. Hence Homicide can be lawful as well as unlawful. Lawful
Homicide may include justifiable and excusable homicide. Unlawful Homicide may include
death by rash and negligent act (Sec 304-A), suicide (Sec 309) or culpable homicide.
1.2 Culpable Homicide
As mentioned before culpable homicide is a type of unlawful homicide. Laws regarding

culpable homicide are enshrined in the Indian Penal Code 1862 (IPC). According to which,
there are two types of culpable homicides-
4
1.3 Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder (Section 299 IPC)
It can be simply referred to as culpable homicide, this comes under the purview of Section
299 of The Indian Penal Code 1862 which states that:
An act done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury which is likely
to cause death or having the knowledge that he can likely by his act cause death, he’ll be
committing the offense of culpable homicide.
Conditions
After bifurcating the definition, we get 3 conditions which have to be fulfilled to attract
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code these are-
 The intention of causing death.

 The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
 With the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death.
Illustration
A not knowing that D has a tumour in his brain, hits him hard on the head with a cricket bat,
with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused.
D dies because of the bursting of the tumour.
A is liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
1.4 Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder
It can be simply referred to as Murder, this comes under the purview of Section 300 of the
Indian Penal Code 1862 which states that:
Culpable homicide is murder, if the act is done with the intention of causing death or if it is
done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause the death of the
person or if the inflicted bodily injury is sufficient enough in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death or if there is knowledge involved that the act done is so fatal that in all
probability it can cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits
such act without any excuse.
5
Conditions
After bifurcating the definition, we get 4 conditions which have to be fulfilled to attract
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code these are-
The intention of causing death.
The intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Illustration
X knows that Z has a tumour in his brain and he hits him again and again with a bat on his
head with the intention of causing death, and
Z dies subsequently.
X is liable for Murder.
1.5 Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1862
Culpable homicide amounts to murder when the act is done with the intention of causing
death but in the cases mentioned below this principle doesn’t apply. The following acts can
amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Exceptions 1-5 in the (d) and (f)
illustrations of section 300 of the IPC define conditions when culpable homicide is not
amounting to murder, these are as follows-
It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if it is committed by a person who gets

deprived of the power of self-control and causes the death of someone because of a grave and
sudden provocation.
6
It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder when the offender causes the death of
someone while exercises his right of private defense of person and property in good faith
It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if a public servant causes someone’s death
while performing his duties and in good faith and he believes that his acts were lawful.
It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if a person causes the death of someone
commits it in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder when a person suffers death with his own
consent when he is above 18 years of age.
1.6 Essential Ingredients
Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder
According to the definition provided under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, there are
majorly 3 essential ingredients to prove that the person is liable for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. These are-

 The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
 With the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death.
Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder
According to the definition provided under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, there are
majorly 4 essential ingredients to prove that the person is liable for culpable homicide
amounting to murder. These are-

 The intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
 With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
7
The person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was
intended
The notion of ‘culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person
whose death was intended’ is enshrined in Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code which states
that:
A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of another person while
trying to kill the other person. Here the intention of the person who killed or grievously hurt
any other person whom he didn’t want to kill or hurt is not considered.
Illustration
Let’s consider, there was Mr A who was angry with Mr B as he took over his business.
He plans to kill Mr B. In order to achieve that he Buys a gun.
He spots Mr B on the street. He takes out his gun and shoots Mr B.
Accidentally the bullet deflects because of a pole and eventually kills Mr C.
Now according to the law, Mr A has committed culpable homicide.
It is also regarded as the principle of transferred intent or transferred knowledge or doctrine

of the transfer of malice.
1.7 Through the perspective of Sec 299 and Sec 300 IPC
The law didn’t make any distinction between the cases where the person died whether his
death was intentional and unintentional. According to Section 299 and Section 300 of the
Indian Penal Code, there is nowhere mentioned that the intention to cause injury or death of
someone or knowing the consequences of the act is with respect to a particular person only.
Hence, a person who has shot someone intentionally but accidentally the bullet changes its
direction killing another person, the person who fired the shot is equally liable for the death
of the other person as he would have been for the person he intended to shoot.
8
Punishment
As we know there are two types of culpable homicide according to the Indian Penal Code
1862. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 299 IPC) and culpable homicide
amounting to murder (Section 300 IPC). Hence there are two different provisions regarding
the punishment for both the offences mentioned in the Indian Penal Code.
1.8 Section 304 of IPC
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder (Section 299 IPC), it states that whoever causes death with intention or
causes such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that death is likely
to be caused because of the act, shall be liable for life imprisonment or imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine
(Section 304(1) IPC).
Secondly, whoever causes death without the intention of causing death or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death or doesn’t have the knowledge that his act could cause death shall
be sentenced to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine(Section 304(2)IPC).
If the act which causes death is done without the intention of causing death but with the
knowledge that death is likely to be caused by such act, the person shall be sentenced to
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
1.9 Section 302 of IPC
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for murder or culpable homicide
amounting to murder (as stated in Section 300 of IPC), it states that whoever commits murder
shall be liable for life imprisonment or death penalty and he shall also be liable for a fine too.
Death penalty under Section 302
However, death penalty can only be given in rarest of the rare case this was held in the case
of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab wherein it was observed that when the court can avail the
recourse of life imprisonment then why the court has to go for such an inhumane punishment
9
like death penalty. The Indian Judiciary has defined certain conditions in which death penalty
could be used as a recourse these were laid down in the Machhi Singh And Others v. State Of
Punjab which are as follows:
 When the murder committed is extremely brutal, ridiculous, diabolical, revolting, or

reprehensible manner which awakens intense and extreme indignation of the
community. For instance, setting someone’s house on fire with the intention to burn
them alive;
 The magnitude of the crime is at a large scale which means causing multiple deaths;
 When death is caused because of the caste and creed of the person;
 When the motives of the accused were cruelty or total depravity; and
 When the murder victim is an innocent child, a helpless woman or person (due to old
age or infirmity), a public figure, etc.
1.10 Section 299 IPC (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder)
A, dig a deep pit and cover it with grass and clay, with the intention of causing death or with
the knowledge that death is likely to be caused. B thinking it as a hard ground tries to stand
on it and dies. A is liable of Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder.
A paid a truck driver to slam his truck on the car of C, he did it with the intention of causing
death or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused. C went to the market to buy
groceries. The truck crashes with his car, C dies. A is liable of Culpable Homicide not
amounting to Murder.
A not knowing that D has a tumour in his brain, hits him hard on the head with a cricket bat,
with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused. D
dies because of the bursting of the tumour. A is liable of Culpable Homicide not amounting
to Murder.
1.11 Section 300 IPC (Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder)
X shoots Z with a shotgun on the point-blank range with intention to cause death, and Z dies
subsequently. X is liable of Murder.
X knows that Z has a tumour in his brain and he hits him again and again with a bat on his
head with the intention of causing death, and Z dies subsequently. X is liable for Murder.
10
X starts firing a machine gun in a crowded mall with an intention of causing death, and
subsequently killing 10 people. X is liable for Murder
Exceptions of Section 300 IPC
X on coming home finds that his wife is sleeping with A. He causes the death of A by
stabbing him with a knife under grave and sudden provocation. X Is not liable under Section
300 of IPC.
X was attacked by thugs who had guns with them, X in private defence kills all the thugs
with his licensed gun. X is not liable under Section 300 0f IPC.
X is a Police Officer, one day when he was on duty, he saw some robbers entering a house
with weapons, X encounters the robbers and kills them assuming that they would harm the
residents of the neighbourhood. X is not liable under Section 300 of IPC.
X and Y had a dirty fight, X in a fit of rage punches Y so hard on the stomach that Y starts
bleeding internally and dies. X is not liable under section 300 of IPC.
A who’s an adult instigates B to jump from a ten-story building, B being under 18 and not
being able to comprehend what A was up to does the same and Dies, here A is liable for
Abetted Murder
Section 302 IPC
A with the intention of killing B shoots at him but the bullet deflects because of bad aim and
kills C. A is liable of culpable homicide under article 301 of IPC.
A was driving his car, under the influence of alcohol he was driving at a speed of 150 kmph,
he loses control and ramps the car on a footpath killing almost everyone sleeping there. A is
liable for culpable homicide under article 301 of IPC.
1.12 Major differences between culpable homicide and murder
“All murders are culpable homicide but not all culpable homicides are murders” this is a very
common phrase used to establish a difference between culpable homicide and murder. It talks
about the point which I’ve already proved before that culpable homicide is the genus and
murder is the species. The major difference between them is that murder is a more
11
aggravated form of culpable homicide. In murder there is no presence of ambiguity that the
act may or may not kill as it is present in culpable homicide, looking at Section 299 of the
Indian Penal Code where there is clearly mentioned that:
“Act done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury which is LIKELY
to cause death or having the knowledge that he can LIKELY by his act can cause death, he’ll
be committing the offense of culpable homicide”.
If you notice the multiple occurrences of the term “LIKELY” showcases that there is an
element of ambiguity that the act of the accused may or may not kill the person, is present.
Whereas, in the case of murder which is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code
there is no such mention of words as “likely” which shows that there is no chance of
ambiguity left on behalf of the accused, the accused is for sure that his act will defiantly
cause death.
As mentioned by Sir James Stephen, it is extremely difficult to distinguish between Culpable

Homicide and Murder as the end result of both is death. But there is a presence of difference
though little it all boils up to a very subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in
both the crimes. The actual difference lies in the degree of the act there is a very wide
difference of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes.
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Sec 299 IPC), Culpable homicide amounting to
murder. (Sec 300 IPC).
We discussed that punishment regarding culpable homicide is mentioned under Section 302
and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
Punishment for culpable homicide amounting to murder (Sec 300) is given under Section 302
which is either death penalty or life imprisonment as well as fine. Punishment for culpable
homicide not amounting to murder (Sec 299) is given under Section 304 which is either
imprisonment for 10 years or fine or both. It can extend to life imprisonment if there was
intention present.
There is one interesting section as well in the act which talks about a person killing another
person by mistake while he was trying to kill another person, it is Section 301 of IPC.
12
Homicide is the killing of another person either intentionally, involuntarily or even as a result
of self-defence. Both murder and manslaughter are considered criminal homicides. However,
the main difference between murder and manslaughter is that the murder has malice
aforethought while the manslaughter does not have malice aforethought.
2. Chapter Scheme
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 : CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER
CHAPTER 3 : INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH WITH RESPECT TO CULPABLE

HOMICIDE
CHAPTER 4 : CULPABLE HOMICIDE : DETAILED ANALYSIS (SEC. 299)
CHAPTER 5 : MURDER – DETAILED ANALYSIS (SECTION 300)
CHAPTER 6 : PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER
CHAPTER 7 : CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER : AN ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 8 : CONCLUSION
13
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Introduction
Homicide is a word which originated from the Latin term ‘Homo’ which means human and
‘Caedere’ which means killing. The act of homicide is an act that has been a part of human
life since the origin of mankind. In the early days of mankind, humans used to kill each other
for food or creating dominance. Kings used to commit mass murders in battle fields to
conquer kingdoms and people killed each other in the sway of jealousy and greed.
Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being, often termed as a Crime
Of Manslaughter in the law of Scotland and England. It is considered to be the highest order
of bodily injury that can be inflicted on a human body.
2.2 Lawful and unlawful Homicide
Homicide is generally classified under two parts, lawful and unlawful homicide.
2.2.1 Lawful Homicide
A culprit in the case of Homicide cannot always be capable or liable. There may be cases
wherein the law will not punish a person for committing homicide. The concept of lawful
homicide is derived from this fact, where the accused has a valid reason to commit the crime.
It may further be classified into:
1. Excusable Homicide- This includes homicides which are committed with no criminal
intent and knowledge. The Indian Penal Code has listed following situations under general
exceptions which evade criminal responsibility for homicides. Some of them are-
Section 80 of the IPC– Where the death is caused by accident or misfortune and with no
criminal intent or knowledge in the doing of an lawful act in a lawful manner with proper
care and caution.
Section 82, 83, 84, 85 of the IPC– Where death is caused by a child below 7 years of age or
under 12 of immature understanding, of a person of unsound mind or an intoxicated person.
14
Section 88- Where death is caused unintentionally by an act done in good faith, for the
benefit of the person killed.
2. Justifiable Homicide- This law itself legalizes Homicides under particular situations. No
criminal liability arises when death is caused under:
Section 76 of the IPC– Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by
reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believes himself to
be, bound by law to do it.
Section 77 of the IPC– Nothing is an offence which is done by a judge when acting judicially
in the exercise of his power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him
by law.
Section 78 of the IPC– Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the
judgement or order of, a court of justice; if done whilst such judgement or order remains in
force, is an offence, notwithstanding the court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such
judgement or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the court
had such jurisdiction.
Section 79 of the IPC– Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by
law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith,
believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
Section 81 of the IPC– Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause
harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or
property.
Section 96-106 of the IPC– Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of
private defence.
2.2.2 Unlawful Homicides
Unlawful homicides are such homicides which attract criminal liability, are restricted and
prohibited by the State. The person committing unlawful homicide attracts legal penalties and
punishments. However the amount of legal penalty given differs as there are different
15
categories of unlawful homicides depending upon the degree of intention, knowledge and
recklessness. Few of such homicides are:
 Section 299 of the IPC– Culpable Homicides.

 Section 300 of the IPC– Murder.
 Section 304A of the IPC– Death By Negligence.
 Section 304B of the IPC– Dowry Death.
2.3 Culpable Homicide
The Indian Penal Code has defined culpable homicide in a simple fashion under section 299
and termed it as manslaughter, which means unlawful killing of another man with malice
expressed or implied. Under English law culpable homicide is the genus and followed by
murder which is a species of culpable homicide defined under section 300.
According to Section 299 Culpable Homicide is defined as “Whoever causes death by doing
an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by doing such act to cause
death, commit an offence of Culpable Homicide.”
2.3.1 Illustrations Of Culpable Homicides
A lays stick and turf 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 and is killed. In this case A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
A knows Z to be behind the bush. B does not know it. A intending to cause or knowing it
likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be
guilty of no offence, but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
A by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind the bush. Here A
although 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 is likely to cause death.
16
2.3.2 Forms of Culpable Homicide
A person who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disease, disorder or
bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other shall be deemed to have
caused his death.
Where death is caused by body injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be
deemed to have caused his death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful
treatment the death might have been prevented.
The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not culpable homicide. But it
may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child
has been brought forth, though the child may not be breathing or completely born.
2.3.3 Classification of Culpable Homicide
It was held in the case of Nara Singh Challan vs State of Orissa, that section 299 of the IPC is
the genus and Section 300 of IPC is its species. Hence there are no independent sections
regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it is a part of Section 300 of the IPC
which defines murder.
The court also observed that, for deciding the proper punishment which is proportionate to
the current offence, IPC has divided culpable homicide into 3 degrees:
Culpable Homicide of the first degree is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is
termed as Murder. It is defined under section 300 and punishable under section 302 with
death or imprisonment for life to either which fine may be added.
Culpable homicide of the second degree (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) has
been defined under section 300, Exception 1 to 5 and section 299 clauses 1 and 2, is
punishable under section 304 Part 1, imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, to either which fine may be added.
Culpable homicide of third degree which is defined under section 299 clause 3, is punishable
under the latter part of the section 304 with fine, or with imprisonment upto a limit of 10
years or with both.
All murders are culpable homicide, but all culpable homicide are not murder
17
In the case of Riaz-ud-din Sheikh vs Emperor (1910)1, it was held that “All culpable
homicide are not murder, but all murders are culpable homicide.” Subject to 5 exceptions of
Section 300 IPC, every act that falls within one or more of the 4 clauses of Section 300 of the
IPC, is murder and also falls within the definition of culpable homicide in section 299 of IPC.
However Every act that falls within any one or more of the 4 clauses of section 300 of the
IPC in respect of which there co-exist one or more of the sets of circumstances described in
the five exceptions of that section, is by that act taken out of section 300 of the IPC, but the
act notwithstanding continues to be within section 299 and since it is not murder, is it
culpable homicide not amounting to murder”.
Therefore every act that falls within section 299 and does not fall within section 300, since it
is not murder, is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2.3.4 Essential elements of Culpable Homicide
Culpable homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide as defined in section 299 IPC. It
defines and explains as to when an act of causing death constitutes culpable homicide. The
important elements are:
 Causing the death of a human being.

 Such death must have been caused by an act.
 With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
 With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death of a person.
In the case of Behari versus State of UP (1953) 2, it was held that though the act may cause
death, it will not amount to culpable homicide unless the above conditions are satisfied.
Therefore the fact that death of a human being is caused is not enough, unless one of the
mental states mentioned in the ingredients is present.
In the case mentioned above, a constable who was carrying a loaded defective gun, wanting
to arrest an accused who was going on a bullock cart scuffled with him and in the course of
which the gun went off and the constable was killed. In such cases the accused cannot be held
guilty of culpable homicide as there was no intention to cause death and no knowledge that
the death may be caused was present.
1
Reaz-ud-din Shaikh vs Emperor (1910) 11 Cr Lj 295
2
Behari vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1953 All 203.
18
2.3.5 Circumstances of Culpable Homicide
Causing Death- In order to hold a person liable under the impugned section, there must be
cause of death of a human being as defined under section 46 of IPC. However according to
the (explanation 3) stated in the section 299 of the IPC which talks about causing the death of
a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But the person causing the death would be
punished for causing miscarriage either under section 312 or section 315 of the IPC
depending on the gravity of the injury. The death must be of a living human being which
means a living man, woman, and of a child even though the child may not have been
breathing or completely born.
Death caused of a person other than intended- Section 301 of IPC states that if a person by
doing anything with the intention and knowledge that such acts is likely to cause the death,
commits culpable homicide by causing the death of some other person whose death he neither
intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, will be held liable for culpable homicide of
the same description. For example- A convinces B to poison his mother. B accordingly
obtains the poison from A and gives to his mother mixing it with an apple. The mother gives
the Apple to the child of B, not knowing it contains poison. The child eats it and dies. In such
a case the act of A amounts to murder by B, though he never intended to kill the child.
In the case of Public Prosecutor vs MS Murthy (1912), the accused with the intention of
killing Narasimhulu (on whose life he had taken out considerable insurance without the
latter’s knowledge) and in order to obtain the insured amount gives him sweets with mixed
poison. The intended victim ate some sweets and threw the rest away which were picked up
by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. It was held by the court that the accused
was liable for the murder of the childrens though he intended only to kill Narasimhulu.
Death caused by Effects Of Words- There may be cases wherein death is caused by the effect
of words. In such a situation the accused will be liable to the same extent as in the case of a
physical assault causing death. Lord Macaulay while drafting the IPC said that “ the
reasonable course, in our opinion, is to consider speaking as an act and to treat A guilty of
voluntary culpable homicide, if by speaking he has voluntary caused Z’s death, whether his
words operated circuitously by inducing Z to swallow a poison or directly by throwing Z into
convulsion.”
19
For instance- A is suffering from Aneurysm ( abnormal dilation of blood vessels). B knows
about it, and rushes into the room and shouts into his ear that ‘Your wife is dead’ intending to
kill and in fact kills him. Here B will be held liable in the same manner and to the same
extent as he would have been if he had mixed poison in his medicine.
By doing an Act- Death may be caused by hundreds of means, such as by poisoning,

drowning, striking, beating etc. However as explained under Section 32 of the IPC the word
“Act” has been given a wider meaning in the IPC in as much as it includes not only an act of
commission, but illegal omission as well. In the case of Om Prakash vs State of Punjab
(1961), Bimla Devi was married to the appellant and their relations got stained in 1953. She
was ill treated and her health deteriorated due to maltreatment and undernourishment.
Sometimes she was deliberately starved and not allowed to leave the house and was treated
like a beggar. Later she escaped and was admitted to the civil hospital. The suit was brought
against the appellant.
The court held that the word Act in section 307 did not mean only a particular act of a person,
but denoted according to Section 33 of the code as a series of acts. In the present case the
course of conduct adopted by the appellant in regularly starving his wife Bimla, comprised a
series of acts which though they fell short of completing the series sufficient to kill her, came
within the purview of section 307 of the IPC. The High Court thereafter was right in
convicting the appellant under that section.
Death Caused Inadvertently without intention while doing an unlawful act- The Indian Penal
Code has made it clear in the illustration (c) under section 299, that a person will not be liable
for culpable homicide, if he causes the death of a person while doing an unlawful act,
provided he did not intend to kill or cause death by doing an act that he know is likely to have
that effect.
For instance- A, a pickpocketer attempts to take out the purse of B, while B was boarding a
train. B had a loaded pistol in his pocket, the pistol goes off and B is shot dead. A will be
liable for an attempt to pickpocket, but not for murder and culpable homicide. The death of B
is purely an account of an accident and misfortune for which the thief is not accountable. On
the other hand under English law, if a person whilst committing an unlawful act accidentally
kills another, he would be liable for manslaughter or murder according to whether his act
constituted a felony or misdemeanor.
20
2.3.6 Mental Element in Culpable Homicide
The word intention in clause (a) of section 299 IPC has been used in an ordinary sense i.e. an
act voluntarily done without being able to foresee the consequences with certitude. As a
general rule, every sane man is ‘presumed to intend’ the necessary or natural and probable
consequences of his acts, and this presumption of law will prevail unless from consideration
of all the evidence the court entertains a reasonable doubt as to whether such intention
existed. For instance- If a man throws a child from the top 20-storey building, it is evident
that he intends the child’s death. An accused must be judged on the basis of his intention
which is indicated by his proven acts.
Intention in section 299 refers to either the death itself, or a bodily injury which is likely to
cause death or the knowledge that his acts are likely to cause death per se. Thus all three
points prove that Mens Rea is an essential element of Culpable Homicide. However there
may be a situation where there is no mens rea present and the death of a man is caused as a
consequence of rash or negligent act of the accused.
2.4 Manslaughter
The term ‘manslaughter’ is not defined under the Indian Penal Code, but it is a term used in
common law jurisdiction. It is one of the types of homicide where a person unlawfully kills
another person, but his liability is not extended as for murder due to the presence of partial
defences.
Loss of control in English law is on similar lines to the one given in exception 1 of Section
300 of IPC which means that the act was done in sudden and grave provocation. Here the
person may take this defence when self-control is lost due to a “qualifying trigger”.
Diminished responsibility defined under Section 2(1) of the Homicide Act of 1957 means the
accused must show that he or she suffered from such mental impairment in which there was a
total loss of ability to understand the nature of the conduct.
A suicide pact is defined under Section 4 of the Homicide Act 1957 which makes a common
agreement between two or more persons with the objective of death of all of them as
manslaughter and not murder. This can be compared with exception 5 of Section 300 IPC
21
which talks about death by consent where this defence is taken under culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
Constructive manslaughter- This is also known as unlawful act manslaughter, in which a

person is punished for the offence of manslaughter if he causes death while committing the
crime. In DPP vs. Newbury (1977), it was stated that the act must be unlawful and so
dangerous that it is likely to cause physical injury to another person.
Gross negligence manslaughter- In R vs. Adomako (1995) this was extensively discussed and
it was established that there must be the presence of duty, breach of that duty causation and
injury must be so gross as to constitute criminal liability.
Subjective reckless manslaughter- The death is caused by the defendant foreseeing the risk of
serious injury or death. Though it is a form of manslaughter, these situations are generally
considered under constructive or gross negligence manslaughter thus no cases under the exact
definition.
2.5 Conclusion
Sometimes it may be confusing to understand terms such as culpable homicide,

manslaughter, diminished responsibility, etc., but it becomes easier if we understand different
minds. Offences against the human body are one of the serious crimes that are on the rise.
Homicide, rape, kidnapping, and abduction are among them. Homicide has a broader
spectrum; it encompasses every act of killing, ranging from the most severe crimes like
murder to relatively less serious crimes like manslaughter. The key differentiating factor lies
in the degree of intent and the presence of mitigating circumstances (for example,
exceptions). Manslaughter is considered less serious. It carries less harsh punishment than
some other types of homicide. Thus, we can conclude that all manslaughters are homicides,
but all homicides are not manslaughter. It is a common law legal term used in countries like
the US, the UK, and Australia, to name a few. Its closest Indian alternative can be culpable
homicide not amounting to murder as IPC doesn’t use the term manslaughter
22
CHAPTER 3
INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH WITH RESPECT TO

CULPABLE HOMICIDE
In any murder trial, determination of intention remains a challenge for the judiciary. This
project intends to look beyond theoretical approach for determining intention and attempts at
analytical justification. The word intention has been interpreted by the Courts differently.
For determining the Intention, the court needs to spy the minds of the accused and by
applying certain parameters determine whether the person intended to cause the death.
3.1 Introduction
Murder accounts for 59.0% (64,949 out of 1,10,001) of the total convicts under IPC crimes. 3
Given the rate of conviction, it becomes imperative to look into the technicalities for
determination of the offence. A number of researches have been carried out in this topic and
humungous judgements exist in this field but determination of intention remains a challenge
for the judiciary. To delve deeper in order to know the role of intention played in order to
determine culpable homicide, this project has been taken up which moves beyond theoretical
approach and attempts at analytical justification.
One important parameter to determine culpable homicide is intention. The word culpable has
been derived from Latin culpabilis which means ‘to blame’. The phrase is attached with
guilty mind or criminal intention. In order to analyse intention to cause death, the main issues
that are dealt with in this project are to extract the ingredients of intention, to analyse
methods to determine intention and to distinguish intention from other mental elements like
knowledge and reason to believe.
In order to address these issues, the project revolves around the concept of intention laid
down under the Indian Penal Code. S. 299 of IPC puts down Whoever causes death by doing
an act with the intention of causing death….commits the act of culpable homicide. S. 300
again lays down that adhering to the exceptions, if the act by which death is caused is done
with the intention of causing death, culpable homicide would amount to murder. So, intention
is inseparable from both culpable homicide and murder.
3
Prison statistics India-2012, National Crime Records Bureau, http://ncrb.nic.in/PSI-2012/Full/PSI-2012.pdf
23
The application of intention to cause death can be understood properly by assuming a few
hypothetical situations. Assuming A keeps a bomb in a lunchbox in the middle of the road.
The place where it is kept is surrounded by people. He manages to keep the box and runs
away. The bomb explodes and causes the death of two people. Now, the question that arises
is whether A would be said to possess intention to cause death in this case. Assuming another
hypothetical situation where the A has some Life threatening disease and X medicine is vital
to his survival. B, his sister, knows the importance of X but still, one day she hides the
medicine in an undiscoverable place. A dies as a result of non intake of his medicine. Would
B be said to have intention to cause death? Moreover what would be the situation in case A
brutally rapes B where she develops Sepsis and dies thereof? Would A be said to have the
intention to cause death?
3.2 Interpretation Of The Word Intention
When knowledge of a particular consequence is backed by will to cause such consequence,

intention is said to have been formed. It can also be called malice aforethought 4. Any
voluntary act is given effect because of determination and will to cause that act. This
determination coupled with the knowledge of the consequence is the main ingredient of
intention.5 It can also be interpreted as the mental condition preceding a conscious act. The
desire to commit a particular act can be called volition and this desire which when proceeded
by a longing for the attainment of some object is constitutes intention. It 6 is the capability to
choose to commit an act.7 Criminality of an act cannot be denied if a person thinks, plans and
executes the plan at that level. 8 Anything that be caused deliberately 9 and with or without
elaborate devices will involve causing that act by intention. 10 The virtual certainty of the
consequence of the act would amount to intention. 11 In Om Prakash v State of M.P12, the
4
D. Ormerod, Smith and Hogan’s Criminal law, (9th, Oxford 2009) 437
5
Shamsul Huda, Principles of Law of Crimes, (State Mutual Book & Periodical Services Ltd, 1982) 170
6
C.S. Kenny, Kenny’s outlines of criminal law, (9th, CUP 2011) 148, Intention can be present in case where
the offender’s mind is working objectively towards his goal without any fear and compulsion of force, madness.
In coming times, the interpretations was further stretched to doing of the act voluntarily and also foreseeing the
consequences of the act.
7
H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility, Essays in the Philosophy of Law (1968), 152
8
State v Sikora 44 N.J. 453, 210 a. 2d. 193 (1965)
9
Morcha v state of Rajasthan, [1970] AIR 80 (SC)Purposefully carrying a weapon would amount to
determination of intention.
10
CMV Clarkson, HM Keating and SR Cunningham, Clarkson and Keating Criminal Law, (6th, sweet and
Maxwell, 2007) 114
11
R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 30 (Court of appeal), The effect of critical direction is that a
result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result
12
(1989) 3 Crimes 266
24
accused assaulted the victim on vital organ with deadly weapon. It was deduced that he had
planned and then executed his act, so he possessed intention. 13 The possibility of formation of
intention at the spur of the moment cannot be ruled out in some cases. In case of Nishan
Singh v State of Punjab14, the accused was not carrying any weapon but he snatched a
weapon from someone else and caused the death of the deceased. The court took into account
the intention to cause death.
Intention is different from other mental elements like knowledge and likely to cause death.
Knowledge is only awareness of the consequence of the act without any volition. An act that
would be likely to cause death would be of further lesser degree where the degree of certainty
of the consequence is far lesser.15 In State of M.P. v Mst Gangabai16, the accused attempted
to dissuade his sister in law from leaving her husband’s home. In the course he hit her with a
scythe. She died of injuries. The court held that the accused knew that his act is likely to
cause death but did not possess the grave intention to kill her. Though knowledge can form a
part of all the three mental elements but the determination of will and certainty of the
consequence is present only in case of intention. Knowledge and likely to cause death would
be called oblique intention.17
Intention should also be differentiated with motive. Sometimes, the act and the consequence
might seem to be innocent, but in order to determine intention, the mental condition
preceding the conscious act needs to be known. 18 Huda19 has explained motive as that force
that fuels intention. Intention may be the immediate purpose of committing an act whereas
motive would be the ulterior motive behind any such act. So, it can be said that motive has a
‘dynamical’ while intention has a ‘telescopic’ aspect.
In DPP v Smith20, the accused drives a stolen car and when he is directed to stop by the
police, he tries to accelerate and the policeman hangs on the car pursuing an erratic course
that results in his death. The court decides that if the accused, on being judged from a
13
Also, in Thabo Meli v R. [1954] 1 All E.R. 373 (Privy Counci), the accused attacked a person in a hut and
thought him to be dead. He was not dead at that time. He disposed his body by throwing it from a cliff. He died
due to that. Though the act was accomplished when the intention might have subsided, yet the first act was the
mere opening act. The entire wrongful act is continued till the purpose is achieved and mens rea is present.
14
[2008] AIR 1661 (SC)
15
Also see Ashok Kumar Barik v State of Orissa, [1992] CrLJ 1849 (Ori)
16
[1971] MPLJ 829
17
Maxwell, 2007) 108
18
Shamsul Huda, Principles of Law of Crimes, (State Mutual Book & Periodical Services Ltd, 1982)172
19
Ibid, 73
20
[1961] A.C. 290
25
reasonable man’s perspective is able to show intention, then only he will be convicted. So,
the case suggested application of prudent man test. This principle was said to be appropriate
since it judged the accused objectively considering all the relevant circumstances. 21 But the
objective test has not been practised 22 as a rule in such cases since, intention is a mental
concoction and cannot be determined merely by judging a person by the parameters of a
reasonable man. It is different for each person.23
3.3 Determination Of Intention With Respect To Culpable Homicide
Intention is locked in the heart of the assailant and inference has to be drawn from acts and
attending circumstances.24 Proving intention is a challenging task for the judiciary and hence
the details of every circumstance at the time of commission should be taken into account. The
facts of the case lay a helping hand in such determination. The subjective test shows its
advantage while determining such intention. A host of such circumstances would include the
nature of the act, the kind of weapon used by the accused, nature of injuries, part of the body
on which injury was inflicted,25 the demeanour of the accused before and after the
commission of the act that would corroborate the establishment of the guilty intention. 26
These collections of determinants can be applied to the maxim that A reasonable person
would intend the natural and probable consequence of his act.
The rule of determination of intention has been elaborately laid down in the case of
Pulicherla Nargaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh 27. It considered elements like nature of the
weapon used, whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up on the spot,
whether the blow was aimed at a vital part of the body, the amount of force employed in
causing injury, whether the act was in course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all.
Whether the incident occurred by chance or whether there was any premeditation., whether
there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger, whether there was any
grave and sudden provocation, and if so the cause of such provocation, whether it was in the
heat of passion, whether the person inflicting the injury has taken due advantage or has acted
21
Kumarlingam Amirthalingam, Caldwell Recklessness is dead, Long Live Mens rea’s fecklessness (2004) 67
M.L.R. 491 and 492
22
Monoley [1985] AC 905 at 921 and 928 , Hancock [1986] AC 455 at 473
23
Maxwell, 2007) 118
24
State of Haryana v Pala and Ors, [1996] AIR 2962 (SC)
25
Amir and Anr v State of Madhya Pradesh, [2004] CriLJ3686
26
Sher Muhammad v The state, [2004] YLR 1096
27
[2006] AIR 3010 (SC)
26
in a cruel and unusual manner, whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. In
the present case, the accused was carrying a Barisa, a dangerous weapon. There was previous
enmity. There was an incident half an hour before the commission of the act and the deceased
was not carrying any weapon. There was no provocation or sudden fight. The accused
stabbed the deceased with great force that caused an injury on the vital part of his body that
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. So, the intention was evident.
If there is evidence or suggesting facts that say that there was premeditation on part of the
accused to inflict such injury then intention would be established. In Mahesh Balmiki v State
of M.P.28 the accused had called the deceased at a particular place. He had brought a knife
with him and after a heated exchange of words, he stabbed the deceased. The entire plot was
premeditated and hence intention was evident. But this does not imply that if there is no
premeditation, intention cannot be formed. Intention can be formed at the moment of crime
also, given the circumstances of the case. In Dharma alias Dharam Singh29, it was held that
mere absence of premeditation cannot lead to the conclusion of absence of intention.
Sometimes, the gravity of the crime also leads the way to determine the intention but it
cannot be taken as a concrete ground without and circumstantial evidence. In case of grave
and sudden provocation, since the benefit is given to the accused, hence objective test is
applied.30 While applying the test it should be noted whether there was sufficient time interval
for a reasonable man to cool down. Provocation may cause loss of self control whereby
malice, which is imperative for the formation of an intention to kill would not exist. 31 Since,
in case of provocation, the accused has no time to think, reflect or plan, hence it brings a
doubt in case of presence of intention to commit a crime. But the gravity and promptness of
provocation has to be such that would deprive the accused of his self control and during the
continuance of such deprivation, he should have caused the death of the person or any person
by mistake or accident.32
In case of Chote lal Shrivastava v State of NCT of Delhi 33, the accused and the victim were
playing holy. Both were under the influence of liquor and started abusing each other. There
was no previous animosity or such verbal exchanges before this time. There was no weapon
28
[1999] AIR 3338 (SC)
29
[1982] Ch Cr Cas (HC) 163 (Del)
30
Rex v. Lesbini, [1914] 3 K.B. 1116 The test was laid down to prevent sensitive people from taking the
defence.
31
Holmes v DPP, [1946] A.C. 588 (L.R.)
32
K.M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra,[1962] AIR 605 (SC)
33
CRL.A165/2012 & Crl.M.(Bail)272/2012
27
also with them at this time. But, suddenly the deceased was seen with a lathi which provoked
the accused to get a vegetable knife from his home. The accused gave a solitary blow to the
deceased and he died. There was no previous animosity between them. Here, the court
decided that the element of intention was missing. His intention to cause death could have
been established if he would have inflicted either very grave injury or more than one injury. It
would have strengthened the claim if he they would have shared a bitter relationship. These
circumstances, if proved, could have been able to establish intention without reasonable
doubt since his desire to commit such act coupled with certainty of the consequence would
have been established. But in Jagrup Singh 34, the court said that the mere fact that a single
blow is given cannot negative the intention always. To gather intention, the nature of weapon
used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant
upon death needs to be considered.
In case of Goudappa and Ors v state of Karnataka35, the accused blamed the deceased that
he was unable to keep his married daughter happy. He stabbed the deceased with a Jambia on
his chest which led to profuse bleeding. Along with him, the other four accused were carrying
axe and they started destroying the victim’s property with that. The court decided that the
nature of the weapon and the severity of attack was the deciding factor in this case. In V.K.
Verma v CBI36, the court said that the concern of the court is with the nature of the act
viewed as a crime or breach of law. The determination of guilt depends upon the gravity of
the act. Focusing on the nature and mode of commission of an offence, the mitigating or
aggravating factors have to be decided. In Virsa Singh 37, Vivian Bose J. clarified the points
on which the intention needs to be judged. Presence of bodily injury, nature of the injury,
element of accident and sufficiency to cause death are the four essential elements that are
needed to be established in case of bodily injury. It is not essential to determine whether the
accused intended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to cause
that injury which is proved to be present. Once the presence of such injury of extremely grave
nature is proved to be present, the intention will be presumed unless the evidence or the
circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion.
While considering death by a single blow, it need not be always the case that intention cannot
be derived. If the blow is severe enough to kill a person at once, then the fact that multiple
34
[1981] CriLJ 1136
35
[2013] AIR 1595 (SC)
36
[2014] CriLJ 1573
37
[1958] AIR 465 (SC)
28
injuries were not inflicted will not act as a mitigating factor. This can be substantiated by Jai
Prakash v State (DelhiAdministration)38 and State of Karnataka v Vedanayagam39 where
intention was derived even when the accused inflicted a single blow. Similarly, in Abdul
Waheed v State of Maharashtra40, the accused inflicted a knife injury on the deceased which
was 3 inches deep over some paltry matter. The SC held that the injury manifested the
intention to cause death as it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
So, combining all the factors, if the circumstances reflect the intention and act as
corroborative device in forming intention, then the accused will be said to have formed
intention to cause death.
Now deriving from all the above principles, the answer to the questions posed in the very
beginning of this paper can be given. In the very first situation, A places the bomb in a place
that is crowded with people. The elements required to form intention needs to be judged in
this case. The nature of the act is dangerous and the fact that he uses explosives is capable of
accentuating the risk to lives. The nature of the act says that such an act cannot be done at the
spur of the moment and there was no grave and sudden provocation. So, the entire act was
premeditated. But what lacks in this case is the certainty that someone would die as a result of
his act. Although the act is inherently dangerous, yet there exists a possibility that the bomb
might not explode due to technical glitches or the bomb might explode when the area
becomes sparse. So, A is not cent percent sure of the consequence of his act. He possesses the
element of knowledge and determination of will but he doesn’t possess certainty. Hence,
intention to cause death can’t be deduced here. The case can be compared to the case of
Fateh Singh v State of Rajasthan 41, the accused send a bomb in a parcel to the deceased
person’s house. The bomb exploded and the accused died. But the court held that there was
nothing conclusive to prove that the bomb would explode merely on handling the parcel.
Moreover, the post was sent by registered post and the name of the receiver was not
mentioned. If the accused would have intended to cause death only of the person who
handled it, he would have taken care to specify his name in the parcel. So, the court
concluded that the case would not come under intention to cause death but under S. 300 (4)42
38
[1SCR2029191]
39
[1995]1SCC 326
40
[1979] AIR 1828 (SC)
41
[1989] 2 crimes 249 (Raj)
42
If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause
the death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death , and commits such an act without any excuse
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
29
Dealing with the second situation, the possibility of nature of weapon is ruled out. But the
fact that B was A’s sister and she knew that A was surviving on the drug X and that she was
certain of the nature of his ailment and that death would be inevitable if such medicine is not
provided to him. So, there exists an element of premeditation and planning and there is no
sudden provocation as such. So, B would be said to have formed the intention to cause death
of A. Such cases find their base upon explanation I of S. 299 43. In the case of State of A.P v
R. Punnayya44, it was said that if a person is suffering from enlarged spleen or any other kind
of infirmity, the accused will be liable to cause death even if he administers a few kicks and
blows, if he is aware of the special conditions. This section applies in case of bodily injury
that accelerates death.45
The third hypothesis is similar to the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v Ram Singh and
Ors.46 The person not only brutally rapes her, but in course, inflicts such injuries that have
been described as dangerous, extremely bad for definite repair and sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Since there was no question of accident and it is a clear case
of certainty of death, intention to cause death is relevant. The present case is a replica of the
mentioned case and hence intention would be relevant.
3.4 Recommendation
The rules of intention are very clearly laid down. The fixed ingredient of intention would
include knowledge coupled with determination of will and certainty of the consequences and
these distinguish intention from knowledge and likely to cause death. But, the problem arises
while determining intention of a person to cause death. While doing so, the factors mentioned
in the project are taken into account but at times they might not result in precise conclusions.
This can happen in cases of accident on purpose disguised to be mere accident. In such cases,
the intent of the accused is very difficult to deduce. If accident is plotted purposefully, then
the parameters to determine intention cannot be very successful to test upon. In such cases,
the courts should not rule out the probability of purposeful accident and should consider it as
a possibility heeding to the past relationship between the accused and the victim.
43
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.
44
[1977] CrLJ 1 But see, Kabiraj Tudu v State of Assam [1994] CrLJ 432 (Gau), Thomas v State of Kerala,
[1992] CrLJ 581 (Ker), Ram Lubhya v State of Punjab, [1989] 3 Crimes 295 (Pun)
45
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s The Indian Penal Code, (32, Lexis Nexis, 2013) 102
46
SC No. 114/2013.
30
3.5 Conclusion
After exploring the intricacies of intention to cause death, it can be concluded that intention is
a purely subjective element. It doesn’t need any prescribed ground rules in order to infest a
person’s mind. But, since A person is what he thinks, the court needs to spy the minds of the
accused and by applying certain parameters determine whether the person intended to cause
the death. The parameters laid down in the project are mere tools that help in determining
intention and may not be always conclusive. So, correct determination has to be arrived at by
extensive observation. After all, Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so
that society must take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant
forgiveness.
CHAPTER 4
CULPABLE HOMICIDE : DETAILED ANALYSIS
31
4.1 Introduction
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is about culpable homicide. Before we move
towards understanding culpable homicide, first let’s discuss homicide.
The word homicide is made up of two words i.e. ‘homi’ and ‘cide’. ‘homi’ means man or
human being and ‘cide’ means cutting or killing. So, homicide is the killing of a human
being. Now, the killing of a human being by another human being i.e. Homicide is not
always punishable under IPC,1860, if it comes within the sections 76-106 chapter IV of IPC
i.e. General exceptions.
4.2 Types of homicide
Homicide can be divided into two parts. First is justified or lawful homicide which comes
under general exception (chapter iv) and second is unjustified/unlawful homicide which
comes under sections 299,300, 304a & 304b, etc.
Here we are concerned with unlawful or criminal homicides (i.e., homicides that are neither
excused nor justified). All homicides are not culpable homicide but all culpable homicides
are homicides. So we can here infer that homicide is the genus and culpable homicide is its
species. That is the reason why ‘homicide’ a Latin term is called the generic term.
4.3 Meaning of culpable homicide
In a homicide, there is a relationship between cause and death but the guilty mind is absent.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea it means, the act does not make a man guilty, unless
his intention was so. When a homicide is committed with a guilty mind, that homicide would
be culpable homicide or murder. The difference between culpable homicide and murder lies
on the point of the degree of intention and knowledge.
When homicide is done with guilty intention or knowledge and that intention or knowledge is
of the highest degree, then it is murder.
4.4 Conditions
32
Here are two conditions that must be fulfilled to commit the offense of culpable homicide and
murder as follows:-
There must be a cause-effect relationship;
Guilty mind (actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea).
Section 299 culpable homicide –
“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”.
Essentials of section 299
The essentials ingredients of section 299 culpable homicide are :
There must be the death of a person ;
The death should have been caused by the act of another person and
The act causing death should have been done with :
The intention of causing death; or
The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
With the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.
Illustrations of section 299
A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge, that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believes the ground to be firm, treads
on it fall in, and is killed. A has committed the offense of culpable homicide.
Simplification of illustration a–
A has committed offence of culpable homicide because all the essential ingredients of section
299 are being fulfilled here as follows :
There must be the death of a person, here z’s death is caused;
33
The death should have been caused by the act of another person, here z’s death is caused by
the act done by a (cause-effect relationship). The cause of z’s death is, the effect of an act
done by a;
Guilty mind, here a laid sticks & turf over a
pit, with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be
thereby caused.
Note: intention or knowledge to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause the
death of a particular person is not required to commit the offense of culpable homicide. Like
in illustration (a) of section 299, a did not have the intention or knowledge to cause the death
of z particularly.
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 to fire at the bush. B fires and kills z. Here b may be
guilty of no offense, but a has committed the offense of culpable homicide.
Simplification of illustration b –
There must be the death of a person, here the death of z is caused ;
The death should have been caused by the act of another person, here the death of z is caused
by b (who did not have intention or knowledge to kill z)
Here a knows z to be behind a bush. A also has intention or knowledge that such firing by b
is also likely to cause z’s death. That’s why a has committed the offence of culpable
homicide.
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.
Simplification of illustration c –
There must be the death of a person, here b has died ;
34
The death should have been caused by the act of another person, here the death of b is caused
by the act of a;
But here a did not have the intention to cause the death of b, also a did not have any intention
or knowledge to cause such bodily injury that is likely to cause the death of b.
Here the guilty mind of a is absent, so a is not liable for committing the offense of culpable
homicide.
Explanations of section 299
Three explanations have been defined under section 299. These explanations further clarify
what will be treated as culpable homicide and what not.
Explanation 1- A person who causes bodily injury to another person 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.
Example: N was suffering from a disease, M could not see N in such a situation so he
accelerates the death of N. And N died in consequence of an act done by M.
Here M cannot escape criminal liability of culpable homicide by stating that if N did not
suffer from the said disease or disorder, he would not have died.
Note: N’s death is caused by the act of M, not by his disease. Also, M has no intention to
cause the death of N, but he is presumed to have the intention (desire & foresight of
consequences ) or knowledge (foresight of consequences) that he is likely by such act to
cause the death of N.
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
skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Example: Death of C was caused by the bodily injury inflicted by D. D says that by resorting
to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death of C might have been prevented. But this
cannot be a ground for negating the guilt or culpability of D who inflicted injury in the first
place. D has committed the offense of culpable homicide.
35
Explanation 3– The causing of the death of a child in the mothers’ womb is not homicide. But
it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living if any part of that child has
been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Example: Child Y was killed in her mother’s womb, this is not a homicide. But when any
portion of Y, comes out of the mother’s womb, even Y is not fully born, and death is caused
to Y, then it would amount to culpable homicide.
4.5 Landmark cases on Culpable homicide
The Empress v. Ganesh Dooley & Gopi Dooley47
Facts: a snake charmer exhibited a venomous snake in public. He knew that the fangs of the
snake had not been extracted. Without the intention of causing harm to anyone, he wants to
show his own skill. He placed the snake on the head of one of the spectators. The spectator in
trying to push off the snake was bitten and died in consequence.
Decision: the snake charmer was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Reason: sometimes even gross negligence may amount to knowledge.
Palani Goudan v. Emperor48
Facts: husband struck a violent blow on the head of his wife with a ploughshare. His wife
became unconscious. He thought his wife died but she was merely unconscious. So for
concealment of his own crime and the true cause of her death, he hanged her. She died due to
hanging.
Decision: the madras high court held that the accused cannot be convicted either of murder or
culpable homicide, but definitely, be punished for committing an assault on his wife and also
for attempting to create false evidence by hanging her.
Reason: the court observed that the accused had no intention of causing death while giving a
blow to his wife’s head. Hence, no mens rea was being found on the part of the accused.
It was not shown that the blow was likely to cause death and the cause of death of the
deceased was asphyxiation by hanging.
47
The Empress v. Ganesh Dooley & Gopi Dooley (1880) ILR 5 Cal 351
48
Palani Goudan v. Emperor [1919 ILR 547 (Mad)]
36
In Re Thavamani case49
Facts: facts of this case are divided into two stages –
Stage i – in the first stage accused has the intention to cause death. Accused hit the
Meenakshi Achi when she was in her flower garden. They thought that she had died. But in
reality, she was merely unconscious.
Stage ii– after believing her death they threw her into well to conceal evidence. She died in
well.
Comment: the second stage was the continuation of the first stage.
Decision: The Madras High court held that the accused was liable for murder.
Reason: from the very beginning accused had an intention to cause the death of Meenakshi
Achi. The accused hit the deceased with the intention of causing death. Even if the intention
at stage ii of the transaction had been merely to dispose of a dead body, the two stages of the
same transaction are so closely connected in time and purpose that they must be considered
as parts of the same transaction.
Note: in the Palani Goudan case, the accused did not have the intention to cause the death of
the deceased, but from the very beginning accused had an intention to cause bodily injury,
and also it was not shown or proved by the public prosecutor that such bodily injury was
likely to cause death.
But, in In Re Thavamani case, the accused from the very beginning has an intention to cause
the death of the accused.
Few other cases & their ratios
Moti Singh & Anr. v. State of UP50
Primary cause and death should not be too remote.
Death of deceased must be caused by the act of
49
(1943) 2 MLJ 13
50
Moti Singh & Anr. v. Sate of UP 1964 AIR 900, 1964 SCR(1) 688
37
Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu51
Three degrees of mens rea are present as far as the offence of culpable homicide is
concerned:
An intention to cause death;
An intention to cause dangerous bodily injury is likely to cause death and
The knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab52
The accused was about 15-20 feet away from the victim when the victim jumped into well.
There was no cause-effect relationship.
It means the death of the victim must be caused by an act of the accused.
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana53
Whether there is an intention or not is a question of fact.
Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh54
A guilty intention or knowledge is essential to the offence under section 299.
“intent” and “knowledge” in section 299 postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude
which is of different degrees.
Mohd Arif v. State of Uttaranchal55
No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determining the existence of intention.
Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh56

51
Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1519: (1976)Cri LJ 1186(SC).
52
Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1876
53
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana 15 SCC 753: 2008(6) SCALE 433
54
Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh: AIR 2009 SC 2869
55
Mohd Arif v. the State of Uttaranchal 11 SCC 497 : (2009) Cr LJ 2789 (SC)
56
Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 SCC 317: AIR 2016 SC 447
38
“Intention” compared with “Knowledge”, requires something more than the mere foresight of
the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.
4.6 Conclusion
Culpable homicide and murder both are offences affecting life under IPC,1860. But the
difference between the two lies at the point of gravity or degree of intention to cause death or
intention or knowledge to cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause death. Also, all
murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are not murder.
CHAPTER 5
MURDER – DETAILED ANALYSIS

39
The term culpable homicide and murder are the two most confusing terms in the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. There is a faint line difference between both of them. Where section 299 of IPC
defines Culpable homicide and section 300 deals with concept of Murder.
These terms always snarls up the one who starts learning these concepts. According to Sir
James Stephen, the definition of culpable homicide and murder are the weakest part of the
code, as they are defined in forms closely resembling each other and at times it becomes
difficult to distinguish between the two, as the causing of death' is common in both.
However, The basic difference between these two offences lies in the gravity with which the
offence has been perpetrated.
In common parlance Sec. 300 is a sub-set of the sec 299 (Culpable homicide is a genus and
murder its specie), Every unnatural human death is homicide but when it is coupled with
intention and not only knowledge (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) then it is a
murder.
5.1 Introduction
The topic namely distinction of Murder and Culpable homicide not amounting to Murder is
very vital. Referring to section 299 and 300 of IPC, Whitely Stocks, Previously Law member
of the council of the Governor-General of India, in his introduction to the Indian Penal Code
in the Anglo Indian Codes, Volume 1, published in 1887, Page 41 comments as follows:
The definitions just referred to are the weakest part of the code, and the law on the subject
should be recast so as to express clearly what is or sought to be the intention of the
legislature.
But, unfortunately, such a legislative exercise did not take place. It has been left to the courts
to bring out and expound the difference between culpable homicide and murder, as defined in
the above said sections.
In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and murder its specie. All murder is
culpable homicide but not vice-versa. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to
the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable
homicide.
40
Culpable homicide of First degree: Gravest form of Culpable homicide. Defined u/s 300 as
Murder.
Culpable homicide of second degree: Punishable u/s 304 Part 1
Culpable homicide of Third degree: lowest type of Culpable homicide which is punishable
u/s 304 Part 2.
The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'
has vexed the courts for more than a century. The safest way of approach to the interpretation
and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the key words used in the
various clauses of sections 299 and 300.
In order to deal with such a vital topic, it is proper to deal with the following three heads
namely:
Exceptions as enumerated in Section 300 IPC.
Distinction between murder' and 'Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Distinction between section 304 part 1 and part 2.
A. Exceptions as enumerated in Section 300 IPC:
There are certain exceptional situations under which, if murder is committed, it is reduced to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, IPC and not under
section 302, IPC. IPC recognizes such five exceptions which are as follow:
 Grave and Sudden Provocation

 Private Defense
 Exercise of Legal Power
 Without Premeditation to a sudden fight and
 Consensual Homicide/ Suicide Pacts.
5.2 Exception 1- Grave and Sudden Provocation
41
When the person losing his self-control by the sudden and grave provocation, causes the
death of the person who gave the provocation or any other person due to a mistake or an
accident then he will be liable for the culpable not amounting to murder.
According to Goddard C.J in the case of R v. Duffy:
Provocation is some act, or series of acts done by the dead man to the accused which would
cause in any reasonable person ….. a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, making him
for the moment not master of his mind….
However, it has to be noted that this provocation should not be first initiated at the instance of
the accused.
Essentials of this exception:
 The accused should not have any ill will and premeditation
 The accused had been provoked by the deceased.
 Such provocation must be grave and sudden.
 Due to it, the accused loses his power of self-control.
 That the offence of murder was committed by the accused before he could cool down.
 It is essential to prove that provocation was sudden as well as grave. The Statutory
explanation of the provision under IPC provides that:
 Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from
amounting to murder is a question of fact.
However courts generally apply the principle of reasonableness in order to determine if such
provocation was grave and sudden enough to result in the ground of exception. Hence
Supreme Court gives Reasonable man's test in the landmark case of K.M. Nanavati v. State
of Maharashtra 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567:
The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same
class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would
be so provoked as to lose his self control.
Gestures and words under certain situations cause sudden and grave provocation to an
accused so as to bring his action under this exception.
42
The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into
consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden
provocation for committing the offence.
The fatal blow on the person giving a sudden and grave provocation should be immediately
when he was provoked but not after the time which was sufficient for him to calm down or to
cool down.
5.3 Sustained Provocation (A court formulated exception under Exception 1)
From the analysis so far, the concerns with the traditional definition of provocation are
discernible. Acknowledging the problems with the grave and sudden criteria, Madras High
Court in the case of Suyambukani In re 1989 LW (cr) 86 have introduced the defense of
sustained provocation within the wider ambit of provocation.
Though the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC seem restrictive in nature, courts have been
broadening the exceptions ejusdem generis to the existing exceptions and have brought in
sustained provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC.
After noting that either pre-meditation or ill will is absent in all exceptions, and that an act or
omission would not be an exception if both are present, the courts came to the conclusion that
sustained provocation can be brought within Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. Thus, it
was held that a series of acts over a period of time could also cause grave and sudden
provocation.
5.4 Sustained Provocation and Battered Women in India
The Madras High Court recognized the Nallathangal syndrome as the Indian equivalent of the
Battered Woman Syndrome. Recognising the Nallathangal ballad as Nallathangal syndrome,
the Madras High Court reduced the sentences of abused women who were compelled to
attempt suicide along with their kids.
In Suyambukkani v. State of T.N., unable to bear the cruelty of her husband, she jumped into
a well along with her children. The children died, whereas she survived. She was charged for
murder and attempt to commit suicide. The trial court held her guilty for murder and in
appeal, the Madras High Court ruled that her act would fall within the sustained provocation
43
exception taking into consideration the compelling circumstances in which she was pushed to
commit it .
Following this judgement the Guwahati High Court set aside murder charges in the case of
Manju Lakra v. State of Assam, and instead convicted Manju Lakra for culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.
Further, the ground of provocation is itself subject to the limitations set by further statutory
explanation to the section, according to which:
The provocation must not cause intentionally from the act of the offender as an excuse to kill
such person or any other person.
The provocation is not caused by anything which is done in accordance with the law, or by a
public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of any public servant. Example: A is
lawfully arrested by C, a constable. A was provoked because he was arrested so he kills C.
Here A will be liable for murder as C was exercising his public duty.
The offender must not have been provoked by the act of the person who is exercising his
right to private self-defense.
5.5 Exception 2 - Private defense
This exception came into play in those cases wherein a person exceeds the right of private
defense. If the excess is intentional, the offence is Murder, if unintentional, it's culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
Essentials for this exception is as follow:
The act must be done in exercise of right of private defense of person or property
The act must be done in good faith
The person doing the act must have exceeded his right given to him by law and have thereby
caused death
The act must have been done without premeditation and without any intention of causing
more harm than was necessary in private defense.
44
Hence, accused get partial defense from criminal liability, when exercising his right to self-
defense in good faith, unfortunately crosses the legal limits imposed by law of self-defense.
Thus, his offence of murder becomes culpable homicide under this ground of exception.
In case of Lachhmi Koeri v. State of Bihar, in which a hwaldar in civil uniform went to arrest
appellant. The Hawaldar confronted appellant in which appellant's shirt was torn . Then
appellant took out his chhura and gave a blow on Hawaldar's arm . Later appellant gave
several blows to Hawaldar and fled. The Hawaldar died shortly afterwards. Supreme Court
held, that the appellant initially had the right of private defence, but subsequently intended to
cause more harm than was necessary for his defence. Therefore appellant's case did not
comes under this exception and was guilty under section 302 IPC for murder.
5.6 Exception 3 - Exercise of Legal Power
This exception has been provided to protect a public servant or a person aiding a public
servant, if either of them exceeds the power given for the advancement of public justice . This
exception clause will not apply, if the act is illegal or against public policy and not authorized
by law, or the person glaringly exceeds the power given to him by law.
The question whether the public servant did or did not believe in the legality of his power is a
question of fact to be decided upon the facts and circumstances of each cases.
In Dakhi Singh v. State, where a suspected thief who was arrested by a police officer, while
trying to escape by jumping down from the train from its off-side was shot dead by the police
officer [finding himself not in a position to apprehend him], the court held that the accused as
guilty of Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder, as it was a case where the officer
though exceeded his legal powers did not have any ill will and committed the offence for the
advancement of public justice.
5.7 Exception 4 - Without Premeditation to a Sudden Fight
Sudden fight means when the fight was unexpected or premeditated. There was no intention
of either of the parties to kill or cause the death of any person. It is not an important fact that
which party has first assaulted or who have offered a provocation.
The Apex court in Surendar Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC 217
summarized the principles as follows:
45
 it was a sudden fight
 there was no premeditation
 the act was done in a heat of passion and
 the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
In Amirthalinga Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu (1976) 2 SCC 195, Justice P.N.Bagwati, held
that In a case of Sudden fight, where the fatal blow was given as part of the sudden fight that
arouse out of sudden quarrel between the appellants part and deceased's party, there is no
scope for premeditation. The appellant neither took undue advantage nor acted in cruel and
unusual manner. Conviction altered from section 302 to 304 Part 1.
Exception 4 v. Exception 1 of section 300 IPC
The Apex court in the case of Smt.Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, clarified this by
holding:
The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said
Exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the First Exception, after which its
place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded upon the same principle,
for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is
total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion
which clouds men's sober reasons and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise
do.
There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1 but the injury done is not the direct
consequence of that provocation.
5.8 Exception 5 - Consensual Homicide
The last exception of section 300, IPC deals with causing death by consent which is
commonly known as 'Euthanasia' (mercy killing). According to this Exception, culpable
homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused being above the age of 18
years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
The points to be proved are:
 The death was caused with the consent of the deceased
46
 The deceased was then above 18 years of age
 That such consent was free and voluntary and not given through fear or
misconception of facts.
Supreme Court in the case of Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar, held that the deceased was
above the age of 18 years and she had suffered the death with her own consent. The deceased
did not give the consent under the fear of injury, nor under a misconception of fact, but
voluntarily, and so the case will fall under Exception 5 of section 300, IPC. Such cases in
common law fall under the suicide pacts, and it shall be manslaughter and not murder.
5.9 Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder v. Murder:
Culpable homicide is a genus and murder its specie. All murders are culpable homicide, but
all culpable homicides are not murder. According to section 299 of IPC culpable homicide
means the unlawful killing of a human being, and this killing becomes murder when the act
firstly fulfills all the conditions of section 299 and then section 300.
As per section 299 of IPC which defines culpable homicide says, Whoever causes death by
doing an act with
 Intention of causing death.

 Intentionally causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death.
 Doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death.
 Section 300 which defines Murder says, Whoever causes death by doing the act with:
 Intention of causing death.
 Causing such bodily injury as the offender knows it is likely to cause death of a
person.
 Intentionally causing bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death.
 Doing an act with knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous and in all probability
causes death.
If we carefully examine the bare act language of both the section 299 and 300 of IPC, there is
thin line difference between both the sections. Section 299 includes term 'an act' which shows
uncertainty, that means 'doing an act by which probability of death is not certain. On the
47
other hand section 300 includes the act, which shows certainty, that means where the
probability of death is certain by that act.
For example: taking illustration (a) of section 299 - A lays sticks and turf 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.
Now suppose A put some poisonous snakes in the same pit, then here this act of A comes
under the scope of section 300 as Murder.
The true difference between culpable homicide and murder is only the difference in degrees
of intention and knowledge. A greater the degree of intention and knowledge, the case would
fall under murder and a lesser degree would result culpable homicide. It is therefore difficult
to arrive at any strait jacket differences between culpable homicide and murder. Supreme
Court from time to time through different cases give their views on this topic. As in the case
of Thangaiah v. state of Tamil Nadu, Supreme court held that following factors should be
taken into consideration for determining death is culpable homicide or murder weapon used,
place of injury, ferocity of attack, state of mind of the accused .
Perhaps the distinction between culpable homicide and murder could be well appreciated by
the illustration given by Justice Melville in the landmark case of Reg v. Govinda, and
repeatedly quoted with approval by the Supreme Court (State of Andhra Pradesh v
Rayavarappu Punnayya AIR 1977 SC 45 ) may be outlined thus.
On comparison between section 299 and 300 IPC, the points of distinction are as follow:
Intention to Kill
Clause (a) of s 299 and cl (1) of s 300 are identical, that shows where there is an intention to
kill, the offence is always murder . Example - A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z
dies in the consequence. A commits murder ( illustration (a) section 300 ).
Note - If an intentional act which fulfills the condition of section 299, but it goes to the
second part of section 300(exceptions), then that act does not amount to murder.
Intention to Cause Bodily Injury Likely to Cause Death
48
Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. Both require
intention to cause bodily injury. As far as s 299(b) is concerned, it merely stipulates that if
death is caused by an act, with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death it amounts to culpable homicide.
Whereas clause (2) of section 200 clarifies, The offence is murder, if the offender knows that
the particular person injured is likely, either from peculiarity of constitution or suffering from
any disease or immature age could be killed by an injury which would not ordinarily cause
death.
The word likely' used in sec. 299(b) means a mere probability or possibility(a fifty-fifty
chance) that the injury could result in death. But on other hand word 'likely' used in clause (2)
of sec. 300 denotes , to an extent, certainty of death.
Illustration (b) to s 300 explains this aspect, where A knowingly with intention of causing
death strikes Z, who is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death,
and Z dies in consequence of the blow.
A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death of a person in a sound state of health. The distinction in the meaning
attributed to the word likely in sections 299(b) and 300 (2) is only in the 'degree of
probability'.
Bodily Injury + Intention + Knowledge = Murder
As far as cl (3) of sec. 300 is concerned, the intention of causing bodily injury is
accompanied by a further objective of certainty that such bodily injury is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The sufficiency is the highest probability of death in the ordinary course of nature and when
this exists and death ensues and the causing of such injury is intended, the offence is murder.
The degree of the probability of death is higher in this particular clause than sec. 299 (b).
For example, a blow inflicted by stick on head may be likely to cause death amounting to
culpable homicide, on the other hand, a wound from a sword in heart will be sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death amounting to murder.
49
Bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death + Intention =
Murder
Knowledge of Death
Both cl (c) of s 299 and cl (4) of s 300 apply to cases where the accused has no intention to
cause death or bodily injury, but there is knowledge that the act is essentially a risky one . In
such a case whether the act amounts to murder or culpable homicide depends upon the degree
of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide [illustration (b) to sec.
299] if it is the most probable result, it is murder [illustration (d) to sec. 300].
For example:
Death caused due to furious driving will be culpable homicide whereas death caused due to
firing at a mark near a public road will be murder under section 300 IPC.
Supreme Court in Willie Staney v. State of Madhya Pradesh held that:
Sec.300 (4) contemplates the doing of an imminently dangerous act in general and not the
doing of any bodily harm to any particular individual. It is designed to provide for rarest of
rare cases wherein the accused puts in jeopardy lives of many persons as shown in
illustration(d) of section 300 IPC.
5.10 Distinction between section 304 part 1 and part 2.
For the purpose of awarding sentence sec. 304, IPC divides culpable homicide not amounting
to murder in two parts on the basis of intensity and gravity.
Part 1 - (a) which is considered to be more serious and grave in nature, liability has to be
proved on the basis of intention of the person while committing the offence.
It covers those cases which fall within one of the exceptions 1 to 5 of section 300. IPC and
cases which fall within second clause of sec. 299 , IPC.
Punishment - Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for either description for a term which
may extend to ten years and fine.
Part 2 - (a) which is considered to be less serious in nature, the liability does not depend upon
the intention rather knowledge is the basis for punishment.
50
(b) It applies when the act is done with the knowledge that is likely to cause death but no
intention to cause death ( third clause of sec.299, IPC). However, if an offence is committed
with the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and such act is done without any
excuse, then the offence will be taken out of the purview of sec. 304, Pt II, and would be
covered under sec. 302, as the offence would amount to murder under sec. 300, cl (4). Thus,
the knowledge referred to in Pt II of s 304 is of a lesser degree than the special knowledge
referred to in cl (4) of sec. 300.
(c) Punishment - Imprisonment extending up to 10 years or fine.
5.11 Case Laws
Culpable homicide (Section 299)
Culpable homicide is covered under Section 299 of the Indian Corrective Code. Culpable
homicide implies the act done by an individual which causes the passing of one more with an
expectation of causing demise or causing such real injury that is probably going to cause
demise, or he has information that the act submitted by him is probably going to cause
demise, is said to submit the offense of Culpable homicide.
Illustration
X actuates Y to put the fire at the spot having the information that Z was sitting behind a
covered region. Here, X is responsible for the offense of culpable homicide, as he had earlier
information that Z was available around there and his actions will prompt Z's passing. Here,
aim makes X obligated to culpable homicide.
Y is determined to have a terminal ailment and to live from one day to another he wants
specific medications. Z limits Y in a room and keeps him from taking his prescription. Here,
Z is at real fault for culpable homicide.
Cases
On account of Reg. v. Govinda, 187657 the denounced had thumped down his significant
other, kept a knee on her chest and gave a few vicious blows with the shut clench hand all
57
(1877) ILR 1 Bom 342
51
over. This act delivered extraversion of blood on her mind and subsequently, the spouse
kicked the bucket because of this. The act was not dedicated determined to cause demise and
the real injury was not adequate to cause passing in the common course of nature. The
charged was at risk to culpable homicide not adding up to murder.
The contrast among murder and culpable homicide is aim. On the off chance that the
expectation is available the wrongdoing is supposed to be perpetrated under Section 300 of
IPC. Assuming the aim is missing, the wrongdoing is managed under section 300 of IPC.
Special cases for Section 300 of IPC where culpable homicide isn't considered as murder
Sudden and Grave provocation
In the event that the wrongdoer is denied of the force of restraint because of unexpected and
grave incitement, and his act causes the demise of the individual who incited or passing of
some other individual coincidentally or error.
This special case is dependent upon a specific stipulation, that is:
That the incitement isn't looked for or is intentionally incited by the wrongdoer to be blamed
for killing or making any mischief the individual.
That the incitement isn't given by whatever is done in submission to the law, or by a local
official while practicing the powers lawfully of a community worker.
That the incitement isn't done while doing any lawful exercise of the right of private guard.
Illustration
An is given grave and abrupt incitement by C. A flames at C because of this incitement. A

didn't expect or have information that his act is probably going to kill C, who was far away
from A. A kills C. An isn't responsible to murder however is obligated to culpable homicide.
Cases
K.M. Nanavati v. Territory of Maharashtra, 196158
58
1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567
52
For this situation, the High Court had broadly disclosed the law identifying with incitement in
India. It was seen by the Court:
The trial of Sudden and Grave provocation is whether a sensible man, who has a place with a
similar society as the blamed, is put in the circumstance in which the denounced was set
would have been so incited as to lose his restraint.
In specific situations, words and signals may likewise prompt abrupt and grave incitement to
a charged, in order to bring his act under an exemption.
The psychological foundation of the casualty can be thought about, assessing his past act to
find out whether the ensuing act prompts unexpected and grave incitement for submitting the
offense.
The deadly blow obviously should follow the impact of enthusiasm that emerges from the
abrupt and grave incitement. It ought not be after the incitement has been chilled off because
of pass of time, if not, it will give room and extension to the blamed for changing the proof.
Muthu v. territory of Tamil Nadu, 200759
ln this case, it was held by the High Court that consistent badgering may deny the force of
restraint, adding up to abrupt and grave incitement.
At the point when the individual surpasses his right to private defence
Where the act is resolved to shield them from additional mischief. On the off chance that the
charged deliberately surpasses his right to private guard, then, at that point, he is obligated to
murder. On the off chance that it is inadvertent, the blamed will be obligated to culpable
homicide not adding up to murder.
Illustration
X endeavors to beat Y, not in a way to make horrifying hurt Y. A gun is drawn out by Y, X
continues the attack. Y accepts that he had no real way to keep himself from being whipped
by X, Y fires at X. X is responsible to culpable homicide not adding up to murder.
Case
59
(2007)12 SCALE 795
53
Nathan v. Province of Madras60, 1972
For this situation, the property manager was attempting strongly to expel the charged. The
denounced killed the landowner while practicing his right to private safeguard. There was no
dread of death to the denounced as the expired was not holding any lethal weapon that might
have caused egregious harmed or passing of the charged. The expired had no expectation to
kill the charged, in this manner, the blamed surpassed his ideal for private guard. The blamed
was at risk to culpable homicide not adding up to murder.
Culpable homicide in the event of Public servant
The act is finished by a community worker who is acting to advance public justice. In the
event that the community worker submits an act which is important to release his obligation
as is done in sincerely and he accepts it to be lawful.
Illustration
In the event that the cop goes to capture an individual, the individual attempts to flee and
during that episode, if the cop shoots the individual, the cop won't be at legitimate fault for
murder.
Case
Dakhi Singh v. State61, 1955
For this situation, the litigant was the constable of Rail line Insurance Power, while he was on
the job he killed a fire fighter accidentally, while he was discharging projectile shots to get
the criminal. The constable was qualified for advantage under this section's advantage.
Unexpected fight
The abrupt battle is the points at which the battle is unforeseen or planned. Both the
gatherings don't have any expectation to kill or cause the demise of another. The fact that
which party had attacked or offered an incitement initially isn't significant.
Case
60
AIR 1973 SC 665, 1973 CriLJ 608, (1973) 3 SCC 803
61
AIR 1955 All 379, 1955 CriLJ 905
54
Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. Province of Uttar Pradesh, 2018
For this situation, the litigant was amazingly furious when he got to realize that his calf had
gone to the expired spot. The appealing party began manhandling the perished, when it was
attempted to stop him, the litigant terminated at the expired. The perished was unarmed
around then, subsequently the litigant had an expectation to kill the expired, henceforth, he
was held responsible to murder.
Consent
If the act is submitted with the assent of the person in question. The assent ought to be
unqualified, unequivocal and with practically no kind of reservation.
Illustration
An actuated F who was under 18 years old, to end it all. F was unequipped for giving agree to
his own demise. In this way, An is at legitimate fault for murder.
X killed his stepfather Y, who was old and sick. X killed Y with his assent. This was culpable
under Section 304.
Culpable Homicide in the exercise of good faith
Culpable homicide doesn't add up to murder in case it is done in exercise of sincere trust to
secure the private or public property. In the event that the act submitted by an individual
surpasses its power given by law and kills somebody to save a person or thing, then, at that
point, the act doesn't add up to murder.
Illustration
Y endeavors to horsewhip Z, not to make egregious hurt Z. Z takes out a gun, Y continues to
the attack. Z in with a sense of sincere resolve to keep himself from being horsewhipped,
takes shots at Y, to such an extent that he kicks the bucket hence. Z is at fault for culpable
homicide and not murder.
The act is culpable under Section 302 of IPC if it doesn't fall under the special case of Section
300 of IPC.
55
Culpable Homicide by causing the passing of the individual other than the individual whose
demise was planned (Section 301)
Under Section 301 of IPC, Culpable Homicide adds up to murder regardless of whether the
individual who was not expected to pass on, bites the dust because of the act submitted by the
culprit, however he had intended to murder another person.
At the end of the day, there is no differentiation according to law between situations where
the passing is caused to a planned individual or regardless of whether it brings about the
demise of an accidental individual.
Case
Abdul Ise Suleman v. Territory of Gujarat62, 1994
For this situation, the charged people had uninhibitedly terminated on the escaping
complainant party in a business area over the span of a quarrel. In the main shot, the
individual was harmed, while a ten-year-old child of a complainant was dead in the second
shot. It was held by the High Court that the youngster demise was purposeful and thus applies
Section 300 read with Section 301 of IPC.
Causing death of negligence (Section 304A)
Under Section 304A of IPC, if somebody makes the passing of one more due rash or careless
act that doesn't add up to culpable homicide, will be rebuffed with detainment which can
reach out as long as two years or with fine or both.
Cases
Territory of Karnataka v. Mohd. Ismail63, 1988
For this situation, a 28-year-old motorcyclist had pushed a 85-year-elderly person from
behind. The elderly person passed on spot because of head wounds achieved at the hour of
the mishap. The passing was an aftereffect of rash and careless direct.
M.H. Lokre v. Province of Maharashtra64, 1971
62
1994 AIR 1910, 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 9
63
1988 (3) KarLJ 141
64
AIR 1972 SC 221, 1972 CriLJ 49, (1972) 4 SCC 758, 1972 (4) UJ 250 SC
56
For this situation, the litigant who was not driving impulsively was not held liable under this
section for causing the passing of the individual who went under the wheels of the vehicle
while unexpectedly going across the street. A man despite how careful and gradually he may
be driving he can't turn away a mishap assuming that an individual out of nowhere comes
before his vehicle while unexpectedly going across the street.
Dowry Death (Section 304 B)
Section 304 B of IPC states that if inside seven years of marriage a lady passes on by a
substantial physical issue or consumes, or it is uncovered that before the marriage the lady
was presented to pitilessness or badgering by her better half or by some other relative of her
significant other, in association with the interest of share then the demise of the lady will be
considered as the endowment passing.
The discipline for Share passing is detainment for at least seven years or a limit of detainment
forever.
Attempt to murder (Section 307)
Section 307 of IPC manages an endeavor to murder. Whoever submits an act with an
expectation or information and under such conditions, that causes the passing of the
individual would be held at fault for murder and will be rebuffed with detainment for a term
that can reach out as long as ten years, and will be responsible to fine, and if that act makes
hurt an individual, the wrongdoer will be at risk to detainment forever, or such other
discipline as chosen by the Official courtroom.
Illustration
R shoots S with a goal to kill her. If under such conditions demise has followed, R will be at
fault for murder.
P, with an aim to make passing Q, who is an offspring of seven years old, leaves him in an
abandoned land. P submits an offense under this section, however the passing of the kid isn't
guaranteed.
Attempt to submit Culpable Homicide (Section 308)
57
Under Section 308 of IPC, whoever submits an act with such goal or such information and
under such conditions, and if that act causes demise, he would be at fault for culpable
homicide not adding up to murder and will be rebuffed with detainment that can reach out as
long as three years, or with fine or both. In the event that the act makes hurt any individual,
the guilty party will be rebuffed with detainment that can stretch out to seven years or with
fine or both.
Illustration
A because of unexpected and grave incitement fires at Z. If Z kicks the bucket because of this
occurrence, A will be at fault for culpable homicide not adding up to murder.
Most well known murder cases
Dr. Rajesh Talwar And Another V. Central Bureau Of Investigation65
The 14-year-old Arushi was murdered on sixteenth May 2008 alongside Hemraj Banjade who
was 45 years of age then, at that point. There were a ton of suspects on the rundown of the
blamed including Arushi's folks. This case got a ton of media inclusion and stimulated public
interest.
For quite a while, Arushi's folks had been held under care. All things considered, it isn't
certain if it was Arushi's folks or the other two workers that worked in her home. However
Arushi's folks have been absolved, yet nobody realizes who killed Ayushi and Hemraj.
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)66
The case got featured with the heading 'Nobody killed Jessica' in the year 1999. The
observers had amnesia and there was not really any individual who approached to give a
record of how a hopeful model was shot dead. Later individuals came to realize that it was
the financial specialist Manu Sharma who was declined by Jessica to serve alcohol had shot
her dead.
Ryan Augustine Pinto Vs State of Haryana And Anr67
65
2013 (82) ACC 303
66
(2010) 6 SCC 1
67
2018 ALL MR (CRI) 75
58
An understudy of II class, Pradyum Thakur was tracked down dead in the washroom of
Ryan's Worldwide School in Gurgaon. The child who didn't cause any mischief was thought
to have been killed over a circumstance of rape by a transport conductor, who got captured
yet later it was observed that the murder was submitted by an understudy of eleventh year,
whom the Court said that he will be attempted as a grown-up
Pratim Alias Peter Mukherjea vs Union of India And Anr68
Sheena Bora's mom Indrani Mukherjea was the genuine guilty party who had arranged the
murder of her little girl Sheena Bora. It was asserted by Indrani Mukherjea that Sheena was
her sister and she never confessed to having two kids. The spotlight was brought to the Dim
Monetary dealings of Indrani Mukherjea and her significant other Peter Mukherjea.
Pramod Mahajan murder case
Pramod Mahajan was a government official in the Bharatiya Janata Party. He was killed in an
open air inside his home. April 2006 Pramod was shot dead by his sibling, Pravin.
Subsequent to killing his sibling, Pravin strolled to the closest police headquarters to admit
that he had shot his sibling Pramod. Pravin was condemned to life detainment and later on
kicked the bucket because of mind drain.
Amar Singh Chamkila murder case
Amar Singh was a famous Punjabi vocalist, artist, musician and writer. Amar Singh alongside
his better half and two individuals from the band were killed on eighth Walk 1988, by a
group of obscure young people. Nobody got captured in any event, when they got killed
before such countless individuals and with no attempt whatsoever at being subtle.
Sunanda Pushkar murder case
Spouse of a previous Indian representative and popular government official Shashi Tharoor's
significant other, Sunanda Pushkar was a famous finance manager. She was killed in Delhi's
Leela Castle's lodging. It is recommended in the report that when Shashi Tharoor saw
68
AIR 2017 BH 4400
59
Sunanda Pushkar, he expected she was snoozing and when she didn't awaken, Shashi Tharoor
informed the police.
She passed on following a day she had blamed Pakistani columnist Mehr Tarar for following
her better half on twitter. As per the posthumous report, it was inferred that she had ended it
all. However, the report from specialists of All India Clinical Establishment said that the
passing was because of medication excess and she had injury marks on her body.
Neeraj Alias Kamal Grover vs State and Anr.
This case got a ton of consideration because of how deadly it was. His body was right off the
bat cleaved into pieces and afterward stuffed in three trash containers and put ablaze in the
woods.
Neeraj's companion Maria Susairaj had documented a missing protest in the police
headquarters. She was subsequently observed to be engaged with the killing. It was found
that Maria's beau angrily had killed Neeraj speculating that Maria was engaging in
extramarital relations with Neeraj.
Sharath murder case
Sharath was a 19 years of age child of a Personal assessment official who was killed in
Bangalore. Sharath's body was found on the edges of the city close to Ramohalli lake with his
options limited together. It worked out that the criminals had choked Sharath to death and
later around the same time they had unloaded his body.
The police discovered that the criminals were companions of Sharath and his dear companion
Vishal was the person who had arranged this murder and kidnapping to clean up the credit.
The Court grants capital punishment just in most uncommon circumstances just in situations
where the denounced is a danger to the general public aa the Court comprehends the worth of
life. The Court has every one of the freedoms and ability to lessen the discipline.
As indicated by this article, first-degree murder is bound to killing submitted with an

expectation to kill and the discipline would be required life sentence. Second-degree murder
envelops unlawful killing where the wrongdoer's expectation was to cause genuine damage.
The advancement of the two ideas: actus reus and mens rea, has been slow and awkward.
60
Prompting allegation that the main justification behind this is that the subject is excessively
emotive.
Albeit the definition is currently more settled than any time in recent memory, this space of
the homicide offenses is shouting out for a diagram drawn up by resolution, like that
accommodated in the US. In spite of the fact that components of the offenses have been
adjusted by various Acts of Parliament the meaning of the murder is still to be found at
precedent-based law; subsequently, further explores are emphatically suggested around here
of law.
5.12 Conclusion
From the above conspectus it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question
of whether a killing is murder or culpable homicide, it will be convenient to approach the
problem in 3 stages:
 In first stage, proof of causal connection between the act and death is determined.
 In second stage, it is determined whether the act of the accused amounts to culpable
homicide'. If the answer is yes', then the third stage is reached.
 In third stage, it is determined whether the act is murder' e.g. case within the ambit of
four clauses of Sec. 300. If the answer is negative, then the offence would be culpable
homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under the first or second part of Sec.
304, depending on whether the second or third clause of Sec. 299 is applicable.
If the answer is positive but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Sec.
300, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under the first
part of Sec. 304 (State of A.P. v R. Punnayya69).
CHAPTER 6
PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER
6.1 Introduction
69
AIR 1977 SC 45
61
Homicide from the earliest times has fascinated the human mind and has always been
considered as most heinous of offences. The word homicide has been derived from the latin
word ‘homo’ which means a man, and ‘caedere’ which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide
means the killing of a human being, by a human being. But then, not all cases of homicide are
culpable as all systems of law do distinguish between lawful and unlawful homicide For
instance, killing in self defence or in pursuance of a lawful authority or by reason of mistake
or fact, is not culpable. Likewise, if death is caused by accident or misfortune, or while doing
an act in good faith and without any criminal intention for the benefit of the person killed, the
man is excused from criminal responsibility for homicide.
Further in some cases the accused may be punished for lesser offences (for e.g. hurt) even
though death has resulted, if the injury resulting in death though voluntarily caused was not
likely to cause death . For example, A gives B a blow and B, who suffers from an enlarged
spleen of which A was not aware, dies as a result. A is not guilty of Culpable Homicide as his
intention was merely to cause an injury that was not likely to cause death.
It is in connection with with homicide that the maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’
has been frequently cited as stating the two fundamental requirements of criminal liability.
6.2 Culpable Homicide/ Manslaughter
The crime of manslaughter is termed as Culpable Homicide. It is a term in the law of

Scotland and England that covers a number of criminal homicides equivalent to manslaughter
in legal criminal jurisdictions.
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code deals with Culpable Homicide and it is stated as
follows – “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death , or with
the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of Culpable
Homicide.”
The Penal Code has first defined Culpable Homicide simpliciter (Section 299, I.P.C) termed
as manslaughter under English law which is genus, and then murder (Section 300, I.P.C)
which is species of homicide.
62
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
skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3 – The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide.
But it may amount to Culpable Homicide to caused the death of a living child, if any part of
that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or completely born.
Homicide is the killing of a human being by a human being. It is either a) lawful, or b)

unlawful.
a) Lawful Homicide: It is also known as Simple Homicide, includes several cases falling
under the General Exceptions. The death is caused in one of the following ways :-
Where death is caused by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or
knowledge in the doing of a lawful act, in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper
care and caution (s. 80)
Where the death is caused justifiably, that is to say,
i. By a person, who is bound, or by mistake of fact in good faith believes himself bound,
by law (s.76)
ii. By a Judge when acting judicially when acting judicially in the exercise of any power
which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law. (s.77)
iii. By a person acting in pursuance of the judgement or order of a Court of Justice. (s.78)
iv. By a person who is justified or who by reason of a mistake of fact, in good faith,
believes himself to be justified by law.(s.79)
v. By a person acting without criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith, for the
purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property (s.81)
63
vi. Where death is caused in the exercise of the right of private defence of person or
property (ss. 100, 103)
Where death is caused by a child, or person of unsound mind, or an intoxicated person as will
come under ss. 82,83,84 and 85.
Where death is caused unintentionally by an act done in good faith for benefit of the person
killed, when
i. He or, if a minor or lunatic, his guardian, has expressly or impliedly consented to such
an act (ss. 87, 88); or
ii. Where it is impossible for the person killed to signify his consent or where he is
incapable of giving consent, and has no guardianfrom whom it is possible to obtain
consent, in time for the thing to be done with benefit. (s.92)
b) Unlawful Homicide : Culpable Homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide. It is

the causing of death by doing:
i. An act with the intention of causing death.
ii. An act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
iii. An act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
Without one or other of those elements, an act, though it may be in its nature criminal and
may occasion death, will not amount to the offence of Culpable Homicide.
6.3 Culpable Homicide – Essential Elements:
Culpable Homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide as defined in Section 299, I.P.C it
purports to define and explain as to when an act of causing death constitutes Culpable
Homicide. The important elements are:-
1) Causing of death of a human being.
2) Such death must have been caused by an act
i. With the intention of causing death; or
64
ii. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or.
iii. With the knowledge that the doer is likely by such an act to cause death.
The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Unless one of the mental
states mentioned in ingredient is present, an act causing death cannot amount to Culpable
Homicide. Thus where a constable who had loaded but defective gun with him wanted to
arrest an accused who was going on a bullock cart by climbing on the cart and there was a
scuffle between him and the accused and in course of which the gun went off and killed the
constable, it was held that accused could not be held guilty of Culpable Homicide
6.4 Circumstances For Culpable Homicide
Causes Death: In order to hold a person liable under the impugned Section there must be
causing of death of a human being as defined under Section 46 of the Code. The causing of
death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide as stated in Explanation 3 appended to
Section 299, I.P.C. But the person would not be set free. He would be punishable for causing
miscarriage either under Section 312 or 315 I.P.C depending on the gravity of the injury. 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. The clause ‘though
the child may not have breathed’ suggests that a child may be born alive, though it may not
breath (respire) , or it may respire so imperfectly that it may be difficult to obtain clear proof
that respiration takes place. Causing of death must be of a living human being which means a
living man, woman, child and at least partially an infant under delivery or just delivered.
By Doing An Act With The Intention Of Causing Death: Death may be caused by a
hundered and one means, such as by poisioning, drowning,striking,beating and so on and so
forth. As explained under Section 32, I.P.C the word ‘act’ has been given a wider meaning in
the Code in as much as it includes not only an act of commission, but illegal omissions as
well and the word ‘illegal’ is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is
prohibited by law, or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for civil action
(s.43). Therefore death caused by illegal omission will amount to Culpable Homicide.
i. Death caused by effect of words on imaginations or passions: The authors of the Code
observe : “ The reasonable course, in our opinion , is to consider speaking as an act,
and to treat A as guilty of voluntary Culpable Homicide, if by speaking he has
65
voluntarily caused Z’s death, whether his words operated circuitously by inducing Z
to swallow a poison or throwing Z into convulsions.”
With The Intention Of Causing Such Bodily Injury as is likely to cause death: . The
word ‘intention’ in clause (a) to Section 299, I.P.C has been used in its ordinary sense, i.e.,
volitional act done without being able to forsee the consequence with certitude. The
connection between the ‘act’ and the death caused thereby must be direct and distinct; and
though not immediate it must not be too remote. If the nature of the connection between the
act and the death is in itself obscure, or if it is obscured by the action of concurrent causes, or
if the connection is broken by the intervention of subsequent causes, or if the interval of time
between death and the act is too long, the above condition is not fulfilled. Where a constable
fired five shots in succession at another constable resulting in his death, it was held that it
would be native to suggest that he had neither intention to kill nor any knowledge that
injuries sufficient to kill in ordinary course of nature would not follow. His acts squarely fell
in clauses 2,3 and 4 of s.300, I.P.C i.e Culpable Homicide amounting to murder.
With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death : ‘Knowledge’ is a strong
word and imports ceratinity and not merely a probability.If the death is caused under
circumstances specified under Section 80, the person causing the death will be exonerated
under that Section. But, if it is caused in doing an unlawful act, the question arises whether he
should be punished for causing it. The Code says that when a person engaged in the
commission of an offence, without any addition on account of such accidental death. The
offence of Culpable Homicide supposes an intention, or knowledge of likelihood of causing
death. In the absence of such intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be grievous
hurt, or simple hurt. It is only where death is attributed to an injury which the offender did not
know would endanger life would be likely to cause death and which in normal conditions
would not do so notwithstanding death being caused, that the offence will not be Culpable
Homicide but grievous or simple hurt. Every such case depends upon the existence of
abnormal conditions unkown to the person who inflicts injury. Once it is established that an
act was a deliberate acct and not the result of accident or rashness or negligence, it obvious
that the offence would be Culpable Homicide.
Death Caused of Person Other Than Intended: To attract the provisions of this Section it
suffices if the death of a human being is caused whether the person was intended to be killed
or not. For instance, B with the intention of killing A in order to obtain the insured amount
66
gave him some sweets mixed with poison. The intended victim ate some of the sweets and
threw the rest away which were picked up by two children who ate them and died of
poisoning. It was held that B as liable for murder of the children though he intended to kill
only A.
Death Caused Inadvertently without Intention While Doing an Unlawful Act: It has been
clearly stated in I.P.C that a person will not be liable for Culpable Homicide, if he causes the
death of a person while doing an unlawful act, provided he did not intend to kill or cause
death by doing an act that he knew was likely to have that effect. On the other hand, under
English law, if a person whilst committing an unlawful act accidently kills another, he would
be liable for manslaughter or murder according to whether his act constituted a felony or
misdemeanour.
Consent is not a defence to Manslaughter: The House of Lords in R v Walker held that the
respondent a truck driver carrying illegal immigrants will be criminally responsible for
involuntary manslaughter, if the act results in death, even if the victim has consented to take
such risk engaged in some joint unlawful activity. In this case the defendant, truck driver ( a
Dutch national) drove a lorry from Rotterdam (Netherlands) to Zeebrugge (United Kingdom).
The lorry had been loaded with a refrigerated container in which 60 Chinese (illegal
immigrants) had been hidden to conceal the illegal human cargo behind a load of tomatoes.
The container was sealed apart from a small air vent which was closed for 5 hours prior to the
ferry crossing to Dover to preserve secrecy. On disembarkation at Dover (in England) the
customs officers examined the container and discovered the bodies of 58 immigrants, who
had suffocated to death. Wacker was charged with 58 offences of manslaughterand
conspiracy to facilitate the entry of illegal entrants into United Kingdom. Applying the
doctrine of negligence( ex turpi causa non oritur actio) for causing death of the victims the
trial convicted and sentenced the respondent to 6 years imprisonment for each the
manslaughter charges to run concurrently and eight years imprisonment for the conspiracy to
facilitate entry of illegal immigrants with a total of 14 years. This decision was upheld by the
House of Lords as well.
Section 301; If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause
death, commits Culpable Homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he
neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the Culpable Homicide committed by
67
the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of
the person, whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause..
1) Doctrine of Transferred Malice: Blow aimed at the intended victim, if alights on

another, offence is the same as it would have been if the blow had struck the intended
victim. This Section lays down that Culpable Homicide may be committed by causing
the death of a person whom the offender neither intended, nor knew himself to be
likely, to kill. This Section embodies what the English authors describe as the
Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or the transmigration of motive. Under this Section, if
A intends to kill B but kills C whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be
likely to cause, the intention to kill C is, by law attributed to him. Where the accused
was deliberately trying to shoot a fleeing man who had criticized his father in a
School Committee Meeting but unfortunately his own maternal uncle came in
between him and the intended victim and thus got killed, it was held that the act of the
accused ws nothing but murder under s.302 read with s.301, I.P.C
Section 304: Whoever commits Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or causing such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death;
Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
This Section provides punishment for Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder . Under it
there are two kinds of punishments applying to two different circumstances:
a) If the act by which death is caused is done with the inetention of causing death or
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life,
or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and
fine.
b) If the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any
intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the
68
punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, or with fine, or with both.
Where the deceased , an old man with an enlarged and flabby heart, was lifted by the accused
during a quarrel and thrown on the ground from some distance with sufficient force and the
deceased got his ribs fractured and died of a rupture of the heart, it was held that the offence
fell under Section 325 rather than 304 as the accused had no intention or knowledge to cause
death.
Section 304 A: Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act
not amounting to Culpable Homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with finr, or both.
The original Penal Code had no provision for punishment in those cases where a person
causes death of another by negligence. That is to say, liability for causing death was limited
only to cases of murder and Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder. Section 304A was
inserted in the Penal Code by the Indian Penal Code Act 27 of 1870 to cover those cases
which under English law are termed Manslaughter by negligence.
The impugned Section provides punishment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or fine, or both in case of homicide by rash or negligent act. The Law
Commission of India in 1971 on the basis of strong demand for the increase in punishment
for the offences under this Section recommended for enhancements of the sentence of
imprisonment upto 5 years.But it was not implemented.
6.5 Principle of Criminal Liability For Negligence: Adomado
The House of Lords in Adomado while dismissing the appeal against conviction of an
anesthetist for gross negligence during an eye operation had failed to notice that the supply of
oxygen has been discontinued, resulting in death of the patient held that to establish
negligence the general principles of law as follows may apply:
 Whether or not defendant was in breach of a duty of care owed to the victim who had
died. If so, the general principle of ex turpi causa applied.
 Whether that breach of duty caused the death of the victim: If so, should that breach
of duty be categorized as gross negligence and therefore as a crime.
69
 This will depend upon the seriousness of the breach committed by the defendant when
the breach occurred.
 In essence, it is permissible for gross negligence manslaughter to be established
without necessity to enquire into defendant’ state of mind.
Essential Ingredients:
To bring a case of Homicide under Section 304A I.P.C the following condition must exist,
viz;
1) There must be death of the person in question
2) The accused must have caused such death; and
3) That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to
Culpable Homicide.
The requirement of Section 304A, I.P.C are that the death of a person, must have been caused
by doing only rash or negligent act, and that there must be a direct nexus between death of a
person and the rash and negligent act of the accused, Section 304 A. I.P.C will not apply.
Where the accused was allowed to manufacture of wet paints in the same room where varnish
and turpentine were stored, fire broke out due to a proximity of open burners to the stored
varnish and turpentine. The direct or proximate cause of the fire which resulted in 7 deaths
was the act of one Hatim. Apparently in a hurry, he had perhaps not allowed the resin to cool
sufficiently and poured the turpentine too quickly.
The deaths were therefore not directly the result of the rash act on the part of the accused, nor
one that was proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence.
The accused was therefore acquitted of the offence under Section 304 A and held liable for
negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter is punishable under Section 285
of the I.P.C. It must be causa causans(immediate cause); it is not enough that it may have
been the causa sine qua non (a necessary or inevitable cause).
6.5 Rash and Negligent Act
70
A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. It basically denotes
want of proper care and caution and connotes and overt act with a consequence of risk that
evil consequences might follow but with hope it will not happen.
Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. Negligence may be either civil or criminal
negligence depending upon the nature and gravity of the negligence.Criminal negligence is
gross and culpable, neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care to guard against
injury, either to public generally, or to an individual in a particular, which having regard to al
the circumstances out of which charge has arisen, it was duty of person to have adopted.
A Person Convicted Under Section 304A, I.P.C is not entitled to the benefit of probation and
lenient Punishment- The apex court in Dalbir Singh, rejected the plea of the accused driver
for invocation of the benevolent provision of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act,
1958.
Medical Negligence: There is an “implied undertaking” by the member of medical profession

that he would use a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill. However, a medical
practitioner cannot be found guilty merely because in matter of opinion he made an error of
judgement. The doctor would not be liable for taking and adopting one course of treatment,
whereas other course might have been preferable.
Doctor liable For Negligence Both in Civil and Criminal Law: A doctor when consulted by a
patient owes him certain duties, viz,
1) A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case;
2) A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give;
3) A duty of care in administering that treatment.
A breach of duty gives a cause of action under (i) Law of Torts, or (ii) Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. The doctor is liable to pay compensation to victim if found liable . In case of civil
case in law of torts the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee, which is about 10%
of the amount claimed apart from other expense incurred. However under Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 the plaintiff is not required to pay the court fees or engage a lawyer. He
may present his case personally.
71
A doctor may also be held liable under the Penal Code for punishment in case of criminal
negligence, for:
a) causing death by rash and negligent act under Section 304A, I.P.C.
b) causing grievous hurt endangering life under Section 388, IPC
c) causing hurt endangering life under Section 337, I.P.C
Both the proceedings (civil and criminal) are may go simultaneously as laid down by
Supreme Court in Union Carbide
In order to prove criminal liability in medical negligence there must be causa causans and
merely proving causa sine quo non, will not be enough. In criminal law the burden of proof
will be much higher on prosecution as compared to civil law. The prosecution will have to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the victim will get nothing but mental satisfaction
therefore, most of these cases are filed in civil courts preferably under Consumer Protection
Act, 1986.
6.6 Conclusion
The field of Culpable Homicide is very vast and is of practical utility . It includes all
felonious homicide not amounting to murder. It is basically a killing which the killer neither
intended nor foresaw as likely to happen; it is an accidental, blameworthy felonious killing.
There have been many cases in which this field of law has been used and correctly applied as
well. The Sections 299, 301, 304, 304A deal with the different aspects covered under this
subject in an elaborate manner all the provisions are not exhaustive and there is a need to pit
into application many of the suggestion of the Law Commission for better administration of
Justice since it would help in the evolevement of this subject with time.
CHAPTER 7
72
CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER : AN ANALYSIS
7.1 Murder70
The word Murder comes from the Germanic word morth, which literally means hidden
slaying. A murder occurs when one person is slain by another or a group of people with the
premeditated aim of ending the former's life. A crime is not considered murder unless it
contains an act that qualifies as culpable homicide under the IPC definition. All killings are
culpable, but not all murders are. Murder is addressed in sections 299 and 300 of the Indian
Penal Code.71
7.2 Culpable Homicide72
Culpable homicide is defined as causing death by doing anything with the goal of causing
death or inflicting physical damage that is likely to cause death, or knowing that he is likely
to cause death by doing something like that. It is classified into two types73:
 Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder

 Culpable Homicide does not amount to Murder.
Section 300 IPC74: Murder
The following is taken from Section 300 of the IPC: 300. Murder:
Except in the situations set out below, culpable homicide is murder if the act that results in
death is performed with the purpose to cause death, or
(Secondly) -If it is done with the goal of inflicting physical injury that the perpetrator knows
will result in the death of the person who is harmed, or
(Thirdly) -If it is done with the aim of inflicting physical damage on another person, and the
bodily injury intended is sufficient to cause death in the regular course of nature, or
70
Section 300 of Indian Penal Code
71
https://blog.ipleaders.in/murder-under-indian-penal-code-all-you-need-to-know-about-it/
72
Section 299 of Indian Penal Code
73
https://blog.ipleaders.in/culpable-homicide-under-indian-penal-code/
74
Section 300 defines Muder in Indian Penal Code
73
(Fourthly) -If the person who conducts the act is aware that it is so risky that it must, in all
likelihood, result in death or physical harm that is likely to result in death, and commits the
act without any justification for risking death or injury as stated.
According to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, negligent homicide is constituted murder
if:
The act is carried out with the goal of causing death.
The conduct is carried out with the goal of causing physical harm to which the criminal is
aware will result in death.
If a person is aware that his act is risky and likely to result in death or physical damage but
yet goes ahead and does it, this is considered murder.
7.3 Murder's Ingredients75
Causing death: It must be done with the goal of causing death.76
Performing an act: There must be a purpose to cause physical injury that is likely to result in
death or serious injury.
The act must be performed with the awareness that it would likely result in the death of
another person.
Culpable Homicide77
Culpable homicide - 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 offense of culpable
homicide.
The accused in Reg. v. Govinda 78 had pushed down his wife, kept a knee on her breast, and
struck her in the face with two to three hard blows with his clenched fist. Blood extraversion
occurred on her brain as a result of this conduct, and the wife died as a result. The act was not
done with the goal of causing death, and the bodily harm was not severe enough to induce
75
Murder Ingridents are also defined under the Section 300 of Indian Penal Code
76
https://blog.ipleaders.in/murder-under-indian-penal-code-all-you-need-to-know-about-it/
77
Defined Under Section 299
78
(1877) ILR 1 Bom 342
74
death in the natural world. The defendant was charged with culpable homicide but not
murder.
The purpose is the difference between murder and culpable homicide. The offense is
considered to be committed under Section 300 of the IPC if the intention is present. If there is
no intent, the offense is prosecuted under Section 304 of the IPC.
7.4 Difference between Culpable Homicide & Murder79
The goal behind the act is shown by the thin line. All homicides are accountable, but the
opposite is not true. This issue as to which case would fall under which category has been a
recurrent matter before courts ever since the IPC was adopted. On the surface, the relevant
sections of the Code appear to classify the situations into two groups, but when it comes to
real implementation, the courts are frequently presented with this quandary. Murder is a
factual matter.
This uncertainty arises when it is difficult to determine from the evidence whether the aim
was to inflict just bodily damage, which would not constitute a murder offense, or if there
was a clear intention to kill the victim, which would be a murder offense. The most
perplexing component is 'aim,' because the intention in both sections is to inflict death. As a
result, you must examine the degree of criminal intent of the perpetrators.
If a person is killed cold-bloodedly or with premeditation, it is considered murder since the

intent to kill is high and not motivated by wrath or provocation. Culpable Homicide, on the
other hand, is defined as a death that occurs without prior preparation, in an unplanned
conflict, or in an unplanned outburst of rage as a result of someone's provocation or
instigation. As a result, determining whether the act was culpable homicide or murder is a
matter of fact.
In State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya 80, Sarkaria J. succinctly stated the contrast between the two:
"In the framework of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide is genus and murder is specie."
All'murders' are 'culpable homicides,' but not the other way around. 'Culpable homicide'
without special features of murder' is a culpable homicide that does not amount to murder.
79
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5080-difference-between-culpable-homicide-not-amounting-
to-murder-and-culpable-homicide-amounting-to-murder.html
80
(1976) 4 SCC 382
75
The IPC realistically recognizes three degrees of culpable murder for the purpose of
determining a penalty appropriate to the seriousness of this general offense.
Culpable Homicide Is Not Considered Murder In Exceptions To Section 300 Of The IPC
Section 300, clauses 1-4, gives the necessary conditions for culpable homicide to be
considered murder. After establishing the circumstances in which culpable homicide becomes
murder, Section 300 specifies some extraordinary circumstances in which murder is reduced
to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, IPC, but not
under section 302, IPC.
The following are the exceptions:
 The provocation that is grave and unexpected

 Private legal representation
 Exercising legal authority
In the event of a spontaneous fight, there will be no premeditation, and in the case of passive
euthanasia, there will be no consent.
7.5 An Extremely Sudden And Grave Provocation
If the offender loses his or her ability to control his or her actions as a result of a sudden and
grave provocation, and his or her actions result in the death of the person who provoked him
or another person by accident or error.
This exception is subject to the following condition:
That the provocation is not sought or is voluntarily instigated by the criminal in order to
justify murdering or harming the victim
That the provocation is not caused by something done in accordance with the law, or by a
public official acting legitimately in the capacity of a public servant.
That the provocation is not carried out in the course of a valid exercise of one's right to self-
defense.
For Discussion Cases/Judgments
76
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra81, 1961:
In this case, the Supreme Court went over the law of provocation in India in great detail.
The court made the following observation:
The criteria for sudden and grave provocation is whether a reasonable individual from the
same society as the accused would have been so provoked as to lose his self-control in the
same position as the accused.
In some situations, words and gestures may cause an accused to be provoked in a way that
causes his behavior to be excused.
The victim's mental history might be considered, as well as his earlier actions, to determine if
the following conduct leads to sudden and grave incitement for committing the crime.
The deadly strike should clearly trace the impact of passion resulting from the quick and
terrible provocation. It should not be done after the provocation has cooled off owing to the
passage of time since this would allow the accused to change the evidence.
Muthu V. State Of Tamil Nadu82
The Supreme Court ruled in this instance that repeated harassment might rob someone of
their ability to self-control, akin to a sudden and grave provocation.
When A Person's Right To Private Defense Is Exceeded
When an act is undertaken in order to protect oneself from additional injury, it is considered
to be an act of private defense. If an accused knowingly abuses his right to private defense, he
may be charged with murder. If it was inadvertent, the accused will be charged with culpable
homicide, which is not the same as murder.
Nathan V. State Of Madras83,
In this instance, the landlord was attempting to remove the accused by force. While
exercising his right to private defense, the accused killed the landlord. The accused had no
fear of death since the deceased was not in possession of any lethal weapon that might have
81
AIR 1962 SC 605)
82
(2007) 12 SCALE 795
83
AIR 1973 SC 665
77
caused serious injury or death to the accused. Because the dead had no intention of killing the
accused, the accused's right to private defense was violated. The defendant was charged with
culpable homicide but not murder.
Punishments
Murder Punishment - Section 302, IPC
Murder is punished by death or life imprisonment, as well as a monetary penalty.
SECTION 304, IPC, PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE
If any of the five exceptions listed in Section 300 apply, culpable homicide is not considered
murder. The penalty for a negligent homicide that does not amount to murder is described in
Section 304 of the IPC as follows:
Imprisonment for life or for a term of up to 10 years, with or without a fine.
Expression Meaning: Beyond Reasonable Doubt
It must be a real and reasonable doubt for doubt to stand in the way of a conviction of guilt. If
the evidence leaves the trial judge in doubt, the ruling must be in favor of the side that bears
the burden of proof. It is the adjudication tribunal's obligation to acquit the accused if the
adjudication tribunal's thinking is evenly divided on whether or not the accused is guilty.
In Imposing The Death Penalty, Examining The Rarest Of The Rare Case
The concept started in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab84, which limits the broad discretion
of the court in inflicting the death penalty, is the rarest of the rare cases. Death was changed
from being a normal rule to only being granted in rare situations, and only after noting the
unique cause for inflicting the ultimate penalty, which cannot be reversed under any
circumstances after it has been carried out.
While the concern for human life, the standards of a civilized society, and the desire to
rehabilitate the criminal have attracted the attention of the courts, the phrase "rarest of the
rare" case has yet to be defined. The death penalty must be imposed based on the criminal's
84
1980 (2) SCC 684
78
actions rather than the crime committed. The idea of proportionality of punishment in relation
to the offense, the victim, and the perpetrator has been the focus of the courts' attention.
Section 299 of Indian Penal Code and Section 300 of Indian Penal Code deals with the
concepts of Culpable homicide that doesn’t amount to Murder. Both mean, to harm a person
but there are certain things that makes Murder differ from Culpable homicide. Hence, the
problem rises here in the fact that both Murder as well as Culpable homicide are concepts that
relate to harming a person but the difference shall be decided on the basis of final outcome of
a certain act.
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code deals with punishment for Murder where the convict of a
Murder is punished with death or imprisonment of life and shall also be liable to fine. Murder
is a cognizable offence and it is non-bailable. And Section 304 of Indian Penal Code says
about punishment for Culpable homicide not amounting to Murder. Where punishment for
Culpable homicide is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a period of 10 years and
shall also be liable to fine. Culpable homicide is also a cognizable offence and it is a non-
bailable offence as well.
Murder and Culpable homicide can be differentiated with certain points. Also there are
certain ingredients to say that the act of a person or a suspect is said to constitute a Murder as
well as a Culpable homicide that does not amount to Murder. The common ingredients are
“actus reus” and “mens rea” where the person would have caused harm to a person by certain
act. As above discussed, the difference lies in the knowledge of outcome of the act he or she
does.
Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with any malice or
a forethought. It can also be said as a serious offence when compared to Culpable homicide.
Moreover an offence will not amount to Murder unless it includes an offence which falls
under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that Murder is a
species where Culpable homicide is a genus.
Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder,
before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: The Culpable
homicide amounts to murder except in some cases, wherein the act which caused murder
should be done with an intention to cause death or Such intention of causing death should
cause a bodily injury to that person or If such intention of causing death causes a bodily
79
injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or He must have the
knowledge that the act he85 has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause
death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit
an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as
discussed above86.
7.6 RULE OF FELONY MURDER:
The rule of felony murder is the exception to normal homicide rule. In normal circumstances,
the prosecution side will prove the intention of the offender who acted with the intention of
killing the person with a reckless indifference. However in this rule, the defendant can?t be
proved to be acted upon any intention to act recklessly against the victim but the only way to
convict that offender is to prove that he was a part of such felony when occurred.
This rule allows the defendant who is the offender to be convicted with first degree murder.
Even if the defendant is not the killer with any intention to do so, he is convicted for the
killing a person during the dangerous felony. This rule will only apply to the cases where the
act involves any act which is more dangerous which the society thinks to deter the individuals
who are involved in those acts.
ESSENTIALS:
An offence is said to be murder when the act done by a person contains the following :
Firstly the act should have an intention of causing death to a person - this is what said as
culpable homicide which amounts to murder and this includes omission and the illegal
omission as well. The act should be done with a clear intention to kill a person. The intention
of a person should be in a conscious state where the person is aroused and he must have
deliberately acted particularly to kill a person. For an instance, if a man administers any
deadly poison to another, then it is evident from this act that he has an intention to kill that
person, where the offender knows the effect of his act clearly. Here the intention is related to
the motive of his thought.
85
Dr.Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S “In Vitro Evaluation of Anticariogenic Activity of Acacia Catechu against
Selected Microbes”, International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Science & Technology, Volume No. 3 ,
Issue No. 3, P.No 20-25, March 2018.
86
Trishala A , Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S,“ Physicochemical profile of Acacia catechu bark extract –An In
vitro study”, International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Science & Technology, Volume No. 3 , Issue
No. 4, P.No 26-30, April 2018.
80
Secondly the offender has the knowledge that his intention to cause an bodily injury is likely
to cause death of the person – according to section 300 of IPC, the intention to cause any
bodily injury with the knowledge that such injury will cause death to the person, this will
amount to Culpable homicide which would amount to Murder.
Here the knowledge is not a probability but he is well known that the act he does against a
person is dangerous that would lead to death of such person. Hence, this is Culpable
homicide which amounts to murder.
In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten for several
times by the offender even after the victim falling senseless. In this case, the court held that
the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in
the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder.
In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man who
stuck his head with a stick while he was asleep. The court held that the offender should have
known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder.
Thirdly if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as
it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person – the subjective factor ends
with the fact that in any ordinary course of action if a person acts to kill or harm a person
with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such
person. There is no need of any further enquiry in this context.
In a case, Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the Supreme Court ruled that when the
offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then the
presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of
such crime.
CULPABLE HOMICIDE:
Homicide means killing a human being either by lawful means or by unlawful means.
Whereby the lawful homicide comes under the ambit of general exceptions in Indian Penal
Code under Section 76- 106. And the next one is the unlawful homicide which comes under
the category of offences against human body in which Section 299 of IPC specifically deals
with Culpable homicide which does not amount to Murder, then Section 300 of IPC talks
81
about Murder and lastly Section 304A which deals with the concept of Death by negligence
in which death would be caused by any rash or negligent act. When dealing with concept of
Culpable homicide, Section 299 of Indian Penal Code comes into play. This section says that
whoever causes death to a person by doing certain act with any intention of causing death or
with the knowledge of doing such act to cause death to a person is said to be an offence of
Culpable homicide.
There are certain exceptions to this concept and they are to be broadly discussed below:
Culpable homicide when not amounts to murder – A Culpable homicide does not amount to
murder is the offender acts without a self control by a sudden provocation and that act
amounts to death of a person by mistake or by an accident. Here the provocation is not
voluntary and such provocation should not be against anything in law or against a public
serving who is in lawful exercise or his powers and also one should not be provoked against
anything done in lawful exercise of any right of private defence.
A Culpable homicide does not amount to Murder when an act is done with an intention of
good faith with effect of any probate defence of person or private defence of property, where
it exceeds the power which is given to him by the provisions of law and thus causing death of
a person against whom he is exercising such right of private defence without any intention of
causing more harm than necessary at that point of time for the purpose of private defence.
Culpable homicide will not amount to Murder when the offender, in case of being a public
servant or a person serving and acting for the advancement of public justice or aid for public
does any act that exceeds the powers which are given to him by law and by that act any death
is caused which he is believed to be in good faith and to be lawful or necessary for the
discharge of his duty without ill-will towards the person.
Culpable homicide does not amount to Murder when it is said to be committed without any
premeditation or as a sudden fight in any heat of passion which is a result of a sudden quarrel
and where the offenders taken any undue advantage or having acted upon in a cruel or
unusual manner.
82
INGREDIENTS OR ESSENTIALS :
With reference to Section 299 of Indian Penal Code, there are certain essential ingredients of
Culpable homicide. They are discussed as follows :
The intention of causing death - The Intention of causing death to a person by the act is the
question of fact which involves the knowledge of the act in prior time of acting in such way
which Showa up the willingness or the intention to cause such impact on another person.
The intention of causing a bodily injury that likely to cause death – In order to prove that a
crime amounts to Culpable homicide the intention of the offender to cause death of the victim
was directly connected to the act performed by him.
The knowledge of the act which is likely to cause death – when an act is performed, the
person who is performing the act he is presumed to be aware of the result of such act done.
But such awareness may not be taken as the intention to do certain act which is an offence.
This is of the fact because intention and awareness of knowledge are two different concepts.
7.7 CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER: AN ANALYSIS
There are certain mechanism to differentiate the concepts of murder and culpable homicide.
The difference is hidden with the terms of seriousness of the intention. In this regard the apex
court has held that:
Once when a crime has occurred and to find whether it is a murder or culpable homicide,
there are certain points to be observed. Firstly one who investigates the crime should
establish the act done is murder. Then he should find whether the crime fulfills the
ingredients of Section 300 of IPC are satisfied.
Next the work is to find whether that crime is Culpable homicide which not amounts to
murder or some other like crimes which attracts the exceptions to murder that is, private
defence. At last, after finding these things, the crime would fit into a certain hole as said in
the Pigeon hole theory and thus the punishment for that crime would bound and the offender
would be punished according to the crime done by him.
The offence committed is a Culpable homicide when the injury done to a person or victim by
the offender which is likely to cause death, it would cause murder when that injury sustained
83
by the victim lead him to death in normal and ordinary course of action. The difference lies in
the intensity of injuries inflicted upon the victim. If the victim is found to be sustained with
several injuries then the accused is convicted under Section 300 of IPC which is murder.
In case of a person stabbing another person with knife in chest or abdomen then it amounts to
Pima facie that would amount to Murder. Where the intention of several persons is to inflict
injuries to that person which ensures death of that person then this Act would amount to
Murder under Section 300 of IPC. Similar to this, if an offender inflicts any injury by a
terrific smash with a hammer in the head which resulted in breaking bones of head, it is clear
and evident that he intended to cause murder to that person. Hence, it is the probability which
determines whether it is Culpable homicide or murder.
The difference between death possibility in both these concepts:
Every murder is committed after committing a Culpable homicide but every Culpable
homicide does not amount to Murder. Murder is said to be an aggravated form of a Culpable
homicide. The existence of one of the ingredient of Section 300 of IPC turns the crime into a
murder where the exceptions to murder turns the crime into a Culpable homicide which does
not amount to Murder.
In both the concepts there is intention which is mens rea involved, to kill a person. But
whereas in certain case the offender will not be certain in death of the victim, in that case the
offence done by the offender is a Culpable homicide but when the offender has certainty in
his act will surely cause death of the victim and this will fit into the definition of murder.
Because the degree of probability of death is high in murder whereas in Culpable homicide
the degree of death is low.
Culpable homicide under Section 299 has certain ingredients. To attract this section, death of
a human being must have been caused by doing an act, (i) with the intention of causing death;
or (ii) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (iii) with
the knowledge that such act done is likely to cause death. ‘Knowledge’ and ‘intention’ must
not be confused. The provision in defining first two categories does not deal with the
knowledge whereas it does in relation to the third category. It would also be relevant to bear
in mind the import of the terms “likely by such act to cause death”. Herein “likely” would
mean probably and not possibly. Injury is likely to cause death, when the same is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death which in turn would mean that death will be the
84
most probable result.87 “likely”- The accused was convicted of an offence of behaving in a
manner likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft by persistent use of his mobile phone. His
appeal against conviction failed since the word “likely” was correctly construed in its
statutory context as meaning “a real risk not to be ignored”. 88 “with the knowledge that he is
likely by such act to cause death”- While it may be difficult to delve into the mind of the
attacker to decode his intention, knowledge of the consequences of his actions can certainly
be attributed to him. The appellant had knowledge that his actions are likely to cause death.
He would, therefore, be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and liable to be
sentenced under Part II of Section 304 IPC. Where the accused inflicted injury by piercing a
sharp edged weapon into the heart of the victim, resulting in his death and the witnesses also
testified that the accused uttered the words before inflicting the injury “of doing away with
him”, the court said that the intention to kill the deceased could be inferred.89
Clauses 1 and 2- The practical difference between the two phrases is expressed in the
punishment provided in section 304. But the phrase, ‘with the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death’ includes all cases of rash acts by which death is caused, for rashness
imports a knowledge of the likely result of the act which the actor does in spite of the risk.
Both the expressions “knowledge” and “intent” in Section 299 postulate existence of a
positive mental attitude which is of different degrees. Further, such mental attitude towards
consequences of conduct is one of knowledge and intention. If the death of the deceased is
caused in any of the circumstances envisaged in Section 299, offence of culpable homicide is
said to have been committed.90
‘Knowledge’ v. ‘intention’- ‘Knowledge’ is an indication of a bare state of conscious

awareness of some facts in which human mind might itself remain supine or inactive whereas
intention connotes a conscious state in which mental faculties are roused into activity and
summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and
specific end which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself. Intention need not
necessarily involve premeditation. Existence of such an intention or not is a question of fact.
Some judicial pronouncements- Where the facts were that the acts of the accused was in the
category of a rash act which brought about dashing against the victim and ultimately in his
87
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753.
88
R v. Whitehouse, The Times, Dec. 10, 1999 (CA)
89
Katta Ramadu v. State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 2428
90
Jagriti Devi v. State of H.P., AIR 2009 SC 2869.
85
death. There appeared to be no intention or knowledge of brining about a fatal consequence.
The liability was under Section 304A. 91 The accused, while engaged in a verbal wrangle with
his wife, struck her a blow on the left side with great force, the effect of which was that she
vomited and bled from the nose, and within an hour died. The death was caused by spleen
rupture. It was held that he was guilty of grievous hurt only.92
PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE
Section 304 provides punishment for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Under this there are two kinds of punishments applying to two different circumstances:
1. If the act by which death is caused was done with the intention of causing death or
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is life imprisonment or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine.
2. If act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention
to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years or with
fine or both.
Section 304 Part I v. Section 304 Part II- Linguistic distinction being apparent, there are two
other distinctions as well. One in relation to the punishment, while other is founded on the
intention of causing such act, without any intention but with the knowledge that the act is
likely to cause death. It is neither advisable nor possible to state any fixed criterion that
would be universally applicable to all such cases. Every case must be decided on its own
merits. The Court has to perform the delicate function of applying the provisions of IPC to
the facts of the case with a clear demarcation as to under which category of cases, the case at
hand falls and accordingly punish the accused.93
MURDER
91
Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2004) 10 SCC 794.
92
Empress v. Idu Beg, (1881) ILR 3 All 776.
93
Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 289.
86
An offence cannot amount to murder unless it is a ‘culpable homicide’. Section 300 of the
IPC merely points out the cases in which culpable homicide is murder. To render culpable
homicide murder the case must come within clauses 1, 2, 3, or 4 of Section 300 and must not
fall within the five exceptions under the Section.
Some judicial pronouncements- When several persons assaulted the victim with various
weapons but death of the victim was caused due to head injury caused by the accused whose
lone conviction for murder was held to be proper. 94 Owing to dispute between two brothers
over the undivided family, one of the brothers caused bleeding injuries to his brother with
cart-peg resulting in his death. The eye-witnesses deposed that the assailant categorically
declared that unless the deceased was killed, they could not get rid of the evil in the house.
This established his intention to kill. His conviction for murder was not interfered with. 95
Punishment for Murder
Section 302 provides the punishment for the offence of murder under Section 300. The
punishment prescribed is death or imprisonment for life and fine. In such case, the court has
no power to impose a lesser sentence once the offence is proven.
Constitutionality of death penalty- The constitutional validity of death sentence was

challenged in Jagmohan Singh v. The State of U.P. 96 The Constitutional Bench while
upholding the constitutional validity of death penalty examined whether total discretion can
be conferred on the judges in awarding death sentence, when the statute doesn’t provide
guidelines on how to exercise the same. The decision in Jagmohan case was rendered when
the incumbent Code of Criminal Procedure, 197397 (hereinafter, ‘the CrPC’) was not in
existence. However, with the coming of the CrPC, the aforesaid provision substantially
changed with the introduction of a reformed sentencing structure under the Code. In Rajendra
Prasad v. State of U.P.98, it was held that special reasons mandatory for imposing death
penalty must relate not to the crime but the criminal. It could be awarded only if the security
of the state and society, public order in the interest of the general masses compelled that
course.
94
Bhakua Kampa v. State of Orissa, 1996 CrLJ 350 (Ori)
95
Chinnam Chandraiah v. State of AP, AIR 1994 SC 959
96
(1973) 1 SCC 20.
97
Act 2 of 1974.
98
(1979) 3 SCR 646
87
Legality of capital punishment- Though death sentence has to be awarded in “rarest of the
rare cases”99, yet the Apex Court has held that in no uncertain terms that capital punishment is
legal and is not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It has further been held
that the mode of executing death sentence by hanging as in Section 354(5) of CrPC is not
violative of Article 21 as it is not a cruel, barbarous or degrading method.100
Doctrine of transferred malice
Section 301 of the IPC is a specific provision. It lays down that if a person causes death,
whose death he neither intends, nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable
homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been, if he
had caused the death of the person, whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to
cause.101 For instance, blow aimed at the intended victim, if alights on another, offence is
same as it would have been if the blow had struck the intended victim. 102 This provision
under IPC embodies what the English authors describe as the doctrine of transfer of malice or
the transmigration of motive. Under this section, if X intends to kill Y but kills Z whose death
he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill Z is, by law
attributed to him.103
Some judicial pronouncements- In a scuffle between accused persons and the complainant’s
party, one member on the side of the accused fired a shot at a particular member from the
complainant’s side but the shot actually hit another person and he died. The court held that
the doctrine of transferred malice was attracted. The act done was covered by Section 304
and he was liable to be convicted under Part II of that section, though the deceased was
neither aimed at nor intended to be harmed by the accused. 104 The accused with the intention
of killing X, on whose life he had effected some insurance, gave him poisoned sweetmeat. X
ate a portion of it and threw the rest away which was picked by the 8-year old daughter of
accused’s brother-in-law, without the knowledge of the accused. She ate it and gave some to
another little child. The two children died from the effect of poison but A eventually
recovered. It was held that the accused was guilty of murder.105
99
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
100
Deena@Deena Dayal Etc. Etc v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1155
101
Dan Behari v. State of U.P., 2003 CrLJ 4959
102
Viswanath Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1994 CrLJ 1037
103
Shankarlal Kachrabhai and Others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260.
104
Kashi Ram v. State of M.P., AIR 2001 SC 2902.
105
Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy, (1912) 22 MLJ 333; Ballan v. The State, AIR 1955 All 626.
88
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER – THE
THIN LINE
Culpable homicide is the genus of which murder is a species. All murders are culpable
homicide but the vice-versa is not true. Ever since the IPC was enacted, this distinction and as
to what case will fall under which category is a perennial question with which courts are
often confronted. On a plain reading of the relevant provisions of the Code, it appears that the
given cases can be conveniently classified into two categories but when it comes to actual
application, the courts are often confronted with this dilemma. This confusion often emerges
when it is difficult to decipher from the evidence whether the intention was to cause merely
bodily injury which would not make out an offence of murder or there was a clear intention
to kill the victim making out a clear case of an offence of murder. 106 The most confusing
aspect is ‘intention’ as in both the provisions the intention is to cause death. Hence, you have
to consider the degree of intention of offenders. If the person is killed in cold-blood or with
well-planned then it is murder because the intention to kill is in high degree. On other hand,
person is killed without pre-planned, in sudden fight or in sudden anger because of
somebody’s provocation or instigation, then such death is called the culpable homicide.
Hence, whether the act done is culpable homicide or murder is a question of fact.
The distinction between the two was aptly set forth by Melvill, J., in Reg v. Govinda 107 and
by Sarkaria J., in State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya 108, “In the scheme of the Penal Code, ‘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 this generic offence, the IPC practically recognises three
degrees of culpable homicide. The first is what may be called, culpable homicide of first
degree. This is the gravest 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 1st 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 Part II of Section 304.”
106
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 9 SCC 462.
107
(1877) ILR 1 Bom 342.
108
AIR 1977 SC 45.
89
The distinction is laid down below:
Section 299 Section 300

A person commits culpable homicide if the Subject to certain exceptions culpable
act by which the death is caused is done- homicide is murder of the act by which the
death is caused is done-
Intention Intention
(a) With the intention of causing death; or (a) With intention of causing death; or
(b) With the intention of causing such bodily (b) With the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death; or injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause death of the person to whom the harm
is caused; or
(c) With the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury
Knowledge intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
(c) With the knowledge that the act is likely ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
to cause death. Knowledge
(d) With the knowledge that the act is so
imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, and without any
excuse or incurring the risk of causing death
or such injury as is mentioned above.
Some judicial pronouncements- Where the deceased, an old man with an enlarged and flabby
heart, was lifted by the accused during a quarrel and thrown on the ground from some
distance with sufficient force and the deceased got his ribs fractured and died of a rupture of
the heart, it was held that the offence fell under Section 325 and not under Part II of Section
299, as the accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death. 109 Where the accused
stabbed the deceased in a sudden incident during an election fever which resulted in his death
four days later in hospital where he had been operated upon in a bid to save his life. There
was no evidence that the accused intended to cause death or cause such bodily injury as was
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was held that the case fell within
clause (b) of Section 299 but did not fall within clause 3 of Section 300, and as such his
109
Putti Lal v. State, 1969 CrLJ 531.
90
conviction under Section 302 was set aside and he was convicted under Section 304, Part I. 110
Similarly, where a young boy of around 18 ½ years old gave only one kassi blow to the
deceased following an altercation between his father and the deceased, which resulted in
latter’s death six days later, it was held that it cannot be said that the intention was to cause an
injury which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death within the meaning of
Section 300(3) and conviction was changed from Section 302 to Section 304, Part II. 111
Where a man lifted a four year old child and threw him on the ground, thereby leading to his
death, it was held that knowledge of death under Section 299 could safely be attributed to
him and he was therefore liable under Section 304, Part II.112
In a sudden quarrel, the accused, a young man, administered a single knife blow on the chest
of the deceased causing his death, it was held that the case did not fall under clauses 1 and 2
of Section 300 but since he had knowledge that death might follow, he was guilty under
Section 304 Part II.113 A police officer was punished under Part II of this section with 7 years
rigorous imprisonment for causing death in custody by resorting to third-degree methods. 114 It
has been held that a person exceeding the right of private defence is punishable under Section
304, Part I and not under Section 302.115
Intention is not the only criteria to look into while convicting a person for on offence of
murder. It must be accompanied with necessary knowledge that such act done will cause
death of the deceased. Hence, intention along with the necessary knowledge is the most
important ingredient of murder under IPC. Hence, even if the act does not cause death of the
victim but was done by eliminating all probabilities whereby the victim could have been
saved, the offence of murder is attracted.
In a case, where a married woman, aged 25, met a sudden death in her matrimonial home.
Her letters and complaints spoke of harassment. The medical report put the cause of death as
spleen rupture and rupturing of pancreas caused by external pressure. Her husband, who was
attempting to escape by resorting to the theory of death by poisoning, was found guilty and
his conviction under Part III of this section and a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment
was upheld by the Apex court. Though he might not have intended to cause death, he did
110
Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1979 SC 1519.
111
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 55
112
Sarabjeet Singh and Others v. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 529.
113
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463.
114
Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 709
115
Sundaramurthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1990 SC 2007
91
cause an injury about which he must have known that it might cause death. 116 Where one of
the accused came forward and delivered a blow on the head of a man which proved to be
fatal, the Apex court held that this act did not attract clause 1 or 3 of Section 300 because the
accused were not armed with any deadly weapon and the head injury was caused by a farmer
with an agricultural instrument which he happened to carry with him. Conviction of accused
causing head injury under Section 300 was altered to one under Section 304, Part II. 117 The
Court will not instantly give death penalty in every case that falls under section 300. The
provision for discretion has been given so that every case can be looked through the prism of
its facts and circumstances and not only through the provisions. It must be noted that
provisions in law are merely directional and provide classification of offences. If they are
started being applied verbatim, then the whole purpose of deterring crimes and reforming the
society from the clutches of such crimes would be refuted. A humane approach must be taken
always while punishing individuals even for the most heinous crimes.
Where a person killed his wife under grave and sudden provocation, a lenient punishment of
two years imprisonment was awarded to him taking into consideration the welfare of his
children.118 Where the accused delivered a single stab blow on the chest of his wife out of
sheer frustration, momentary impulse and anger, on her refusal to oblige him with sex
without any intention to cause her death, his act was held to be culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and his conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304, Part
I.119
A pregnant woman who went to draw water from a well was stopped from doing so by
several persons armed with ‘lathis’ and started abusing her. One of the accused gave a ‘lathi’
blow on her head while another kicked her abdomen, as a result of which she died on the
spot. Her son who tried to rescue her was also injured. Looking at conduct of the accused it
couldn’t be said that they had common object to kill the woman or cause injury to her son.
Both the assailants were convicted under Part II of Section 304 and the rest were acquitted. 120
7.8 Conclusion
116
S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 917.
117
Pularu v. State of M.P., AIR 1993 SC 1375.
118
State of Karnataka v. R. Varadraju, (1995) 2 CrLJ 1429 (Kant).
119
Ghansham v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 CrLJ 27 (Bom)
120
Roop Ram v. Stat of U.P., 1995 CrLJ 3499 (All).
92
As previously stated, the boundary between murder and culpable homicide is razor-thin. The
courts have tried time and time again to distinguish between the two acts, despite the fact that
the final effect is the same, with the intention behind the offense being the most crucial
component to examine. The prosecution's whole case can be built on a single point, namely
intention, while the defense can demolish the prosecution's entire case by establishing no
intention.
Though both the concepts of murder and culpable homicide seem to be same in certain sense
they differ in the aspect of degree of probability of death or it can be said as the seriousness
of act of the crime.
If the act done by the offender is either a heinous crime or it be a very dangerous act that
causes only death to a person, without any other result it would aptly fall under the concept if
Murder and not Culpable homicide. If such an act by the offender leaves the victim to be
alive with some grievous hurt with chance of escaping death, then it is said to be a Culpable
homicide which does not amount to murder.
There are growing threats to women and children by crimes like rape and murder. The recent
reports say that these crime rates increase day by day. To resolve this, the legislations shall
consider giving deterrent theory and punishments mentioned in it. Thus, the crime rates may
gat reduced by this theory. When there is increase in punishments, there is a decrease in
crimes. Murder is a crime for which the punishment may be prescribed as death penalty with
implementation of the deterrent theory.
‘Culpable homicide’ and ‘Murder’ are two overlapping yet distinct offences. The distinction
between the two is in the ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ of the culprit in committing the crime.
Though on plain reading of the provisions, it appears that the cases can be conveniently
classified into the two categories but when it comes to the actual application of these two
sections in a given case, the courts are often confronted with the dilemma of culpable
homicide and murder.
A general line, however, cannot be drawn. Hence, every case must be looked into depending
on the facts and circumstances. Hence, the role of the judge becomes very important. One
cannot expect him or her to be precise all the time as a human is meant to err but a judge
deciding such a sensitive case must leave no stone unturned in analysing all the nuances of
the case and then come to any conclusion. Since “A person is what he thinks”, the courts
93
needs to spy the minds of the accused and by applying certain logics and theories with
parameters determine as to whether the person intended to cause the death. Such
determination has to be arrived at after extensive observation.
Since there is no radical difference between the two offences except the degree of intention
and knowledge (being higher in case of murder), a common line of distinction cannot be
drawn. Hence, it will depend from case to case. As noted above, it’s the judge who plays the
most crucial role in such cases. Hence, it is quite obvious that such decisions do attract lot of
scrutiny by lawyers, judges, law scholars and professors, as it’s all about the facts of the case
and nothing else. Since it’s the facts that will determine the gravity of the offence, the burden
of presenting good arguments before the court will be borne by the lawyers representing the
two sides, as to how well articulate and precise are there arguments in support of their clients,
irrespective of which side they are representing. Also, another important postulate would be
as to how the law or Code dealing with the crimes regards the two offences as distinct and
what the criterion for distinguishing them is.
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
All murders are culpable homicide, but all culpable homicides are not murder.
94
Is the above statement confusing? You won’t be at the end of the article. To start with,
Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code (1860) deals with culpable homicide and
murder, respectively. Generally, the thin line of distinction between them is the reason why
many find it interesting. Even it poses difficulty for advocates and legal practitioners who are
unsure where to lay the case. Murder and culpable homicide appear to be more similar than
they are, but they are not interchangeable terms. Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code defines
culpable homicide, whereas Section 300 deals with the concept of murder. The person who
begins to learn these notions is always snarled up by these phrases. The term ‘homicide’
refers to the killing of a human being, the term ‘culpable homicide’ refers to the unlawful
killing of a person and the term ‘murder’ also refers to the killing of a person. So what are the
slight points to be pondered to arrive at a conclusion? This article deals with every such
aspect of the topic.
Homicide
Homicide is derived from the Latin phrases homi (man) and cido (cut). Homicide literally
means the killing of a human being by another human being. The term ‘homicide’ refers to
the act of causing or hastening the death of a human being by another human being.
However, not all homicides are illegal or criminal. The death of an assailant caused by an
innocent agent, such as a child under the age of discretion (doli incapax) or a person of
unsound mind, or the death of the assailant caused in the exercise of the right of private
defence, is not illegal. In the first, the perpetrator is ‘excused,’ but in the second, the
defendant’s actions are ‘justified.’
Types of homicides
As a result, there are two sorts of homicides: (1) lawful homicides and (2) unlawful
homicides. Lawful homicides are ones that fall under the IPC’s Chapter on General
Exceptions and are hence not penalised. The homicides that are penalised under the Code
clearly fall within the category of unlawful homicides.
Lawful homicides can be divided into two categories based on the nature of the ‘general
exceptions’ that surround the homicide: excusable homicides, and justifiable homicides. As a
result, the IPC recognises three types of homicide. There are three types of murders:
Excusable
95
Justifiable, and
Unlawful or criminal (i.e. killings that are neither excused nor justified).
The ‘Offenses Affecting Life’ under Chapter XVI of the IPC deals with homicide offences. It
is made up of four homicide offenses, namely:
Culpable homicide that does not amount to murder,
Culpable homicide that does amount to murder,
Death by a rash or negligent act, and
Dowry death.
Culpable homicide
According to Section 299 of IPC, a person who commits culpable homicide does an act with
the intent of causing death, or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.
Illustration:
A is aware that Z is hiding behind a bush. B is completely unaware of this. A causes B to

shoot at the bush with the intent of causing, or knowing that it is likely to cause, Z’s death. Z
is killed by B’s bullets. B may be innocent in this case, but A has committed the crime of
culpable homicide.
Culpable homicide is defined under Section 299 of the Criminal Code. Section 300 defines
murder as a culpable homicide with certain distinguishing features, which are listed in clauses
1-4 of Section 300, subject to the exclusions set out in Section 300. Any culpable homicide
that occurs within one of the four clauses in Section 300 is considered murder. All other cases
of culpable homicide, including those that may fall under the exceptions to Section 300, shall
be considered culpable homicide rather than murder. While Section 299 defines ‘culpable
homicide,’ it is not exhaustive.
Essential ingredients of culpable homicide
The following are the essential elements of culpable homicide:
96
a person must be dead;
the death must have been caused by the act of another person; and
the act causing death must have been done with:
(a) the intention of causing death; or
(b) the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death; or
(c) with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.
Explanations for Section 299 IPC
The definition itself specifies three scenarios in which the presence or absence of particular
criteria in the cause of death is recognised as culpable homicide. Explanations 1-3 deal with
these scenarios.
Explanation 1
It describes a circumstance in which the injured individual has a disorder, sickness, or bodily
infirmity that has hastened his death. The fact that his death was expedited or hastened by the
sickness or disease he was already suffering from does not relieve the person who caused the
damage of guilt. In other words, the person who inflicted the harm cannot avoid criminal
liability for culpable homicide by claiming that the person wounded would not have died if
he had not suffered from the condition or ailment.
For instance, A is suffering from diabetes. B with the intention of hastening the death of A
gave him a lot of sweets. The intended victim ate the sweets, as a result of which, his blood
sugar level went high and eventually resulted in his death. Thus, B is criminally liable.
Explanation 2
It describes a circumstance in which an injured person may have recovered and avoided death
if he had received early and appropriated medical treatment. In such cases, the fact that the
wounded person died as a result of his inability to obtain adequate medical care cannot be
used to absolve the person who caused the harm in the first place of liability.
97
For instance, A is suffering from diabetes. B with the intention of hastening the death of A
gave him a lot of sweets. The intended victim ate the sweets, as a result of which, his blood
sugar level went high and eventually resulted in his death owing to the lack of immediate
medical care. Here, the fact of the lack of immediate medical care cannot be considered to
acquit B from liability.
Explanation 3
It refers to a somewhat different circumstance. It takes into account a child’s death while still
in the mother’s womb. It is not culpable homicide if the child dies while still in the mother’s
womb, according to the law. However, if any part of the child emerges from the mother’s
womb, even if it is not completely developed, and the kid dies, it is considered a culpable
homicide.
For instance, A is a pregnant woman who’s yet to deliver a baby in the hospital. Now, the
head of baby B comes out of the womb. If the baby dies, it amounts to culpable homicide.
In Jabbar And Ors. v. State (1965), Sarju, Jamna’s brother, was said to have been hired as a
labourer by Ishaq, the appellant, to transport limestone from Saraiya hill. Ishaq was said to
have slapped Sarju twice when he stated his willingness to carry just five ‘dharas’ (seers) of
lime instead of the seven that Ishaq demanded. The three brothers, Jabbar, Ishaq, and Habib
are said to have gone to their residence after that and saw Sarju seated there while Smt.
Pangoli was applying turmeric to the back of his neck. Ishaq appellant is accused of striking
two lathi strikes at Sarju as soon as the appellants arrived on the scene, causing him to flee to
his own nearby Kotha. After that, it is reported that Jabbar appellant inquired about Jamna.
As Smt. Pangoli was unable to inform him, the appellant Jabbar is accused of pushing her,
causing her to fall on her stomach, and then kicking her on the side of her stomach. Smt.
Pangoli, who was pregnant at the time, became unwell as a result and gave birth prematurely
to a seven-month-old baby who died. The child’s hands, feet, and other body parts had
developed, according to the post mortem report. In other words, the baby had developed
sufficiently to be deemed an independent entity from the mother in the eyes of the law. The
court found Jabbar guilty of an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 500, and three months of
further rigorous imprisonment if he did not pay the fee.
98
Section 301 IPC : culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person
whose death was intended
By Section 301, if a person commits culpable homicide by causing the death of someone
whose death he neither intends nor knows to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide
committed by the offender is of the same description as if he had caused the death of the
person whose death he intended or knew to be likely to cause.
In Rajbir Singh v. State Of U.P (2006), the appellant alleged that his brother’s home was
attacked with bricks by a neighbour. As a result of this, his father and the accused had a
verbal spat, but the problem was eventually resolved by the locals. The next day, the accused
and two relatives arrived with firearms. They approached the complainant’s business, where
his father was standing. The accused allegedly persuaded or urged his relatives to murder him
there. The accused began firing at the complainant’s father, who was injured and fell to the
ground. A girl went to that shop to buy some items and was injured and fell down. On their
route to the hospital, both of the injured people died. In his defence, the accused claimed that
the girl died by mistake and that they had no intention of killing her. She was going through
that area when she was injured and died as a result. The Supreme Court overturned the High
Court’s decision and found the defendants guilty. He was accused under Section 301 of the
IPC.
Murder
By Section 300, unless otherwise specified, culpable homicide is murder:
If the act that causes the death is done with the intent of causing death, or—
A fires a shot at Z, intending to kill him. As a result, Z dies. A commits murder.
If the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows is
likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
Knowing that B is suffering from an illness that makes a blow likely to kill him, A hits him
with the intention of injuring him. As a result of the strike, B dies. Although the strike may
not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in
good health, A is guilty of murder. However, if A, unaware that B is suffering from a disease,
strikes him with a blow that would not, in the ordinary course of nature, kill a person in good
99
health, A is not guilty of murder if he did not intend to cause death or bodily injury that
would, in the ordinary course of nature, kill a person in good health.
If it is done with the aim of inflicting physical damage on another person, and the bodily
injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the regular course of nature, or—
In the regular course of nature, A purposefully causes Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient

to kill a man. As a result, Z dies. A is guilty of murder in this case, despite the fact that he
may not have planned to kill Z.
If the person conducting the act is aware that it is so risky that it must, in all likelihood, result
in death or physical harm that is likely to result in death and conducts the act without any
justification for risking death or injury as stated.
Without justification, A shoots a loaded cannon into a gathering of people, killing one of
them. A is guilty of murder, even though he did not have a planned plan to kill somebody in
particular.
Exceptions
Exception I : grave and sudden provocation
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender causes the death of the person who delivered
the provocation or any other person by mistake or accident while being deprived of the ability
of self-control by grave and immediate provocation.
Illustration
Under the impact of emotions aroused by Z’s provocation, A murders Y, Z’s child, on
purpose. In as much as the provocation was not offered by the child, and the child’s death
was not caused by accident or misfortune while doing an act prompted by the provocation,
this is murder.
The exception is subject to three exceptions of its own:
The provocation should not have been sought voluntarily by the culprit as a justification for
killing or harming anybody.
100
The provocation should not be caused by an act carried out in accordance with the law or by a
public official in the lawful exercise of his powers.
The provocation is unrelated to any actions taken in the exercise of one’s right to self-
defence.
KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
The defendant in KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961), was a naval officer. He had
three children and was married. His wife admitted to him one day that she had an affair with
Prem Ahuja, the deceased. Enraged, the accused returned to his ship, got a semi-automatic
pistol and six rounds from the ship’s shop, proceeded to the deceased’s flat, entered his
bedroom, and shot him to death. Following that, the accused turned himself in to the police.
The Supreme Court had to decide whether the accused’s actions were covered by Exception 1
of Section 300. The following postulates pertaining to the grave and abrupt provocation were
established by the Supreme Court:
The test of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation is whether a reasonable man from the same social
group as the accused would be so outraged as to lose his self-control in the position in which
the accused was put.
In India, words and gestures may give grave and sudden provocation to an accused, so
bringing his act within the first exception to Section 300 of the IPC.
In determining whether the succeeding action produced significant and immediate

provocation for committing the crime, the mental context formed by the victim’s earlier act
may be taken into account.
The fatal strike should be definitely connected to the effect of passion emanating from that
provocation, not after the passion had cooled down due to the passage of time or otherwise
allowing for premeditation and calculation.
The accused may have temporarily lost control after his wife admitted to her illegitimate
relationship with the deceased, according to the Supreme Court. After dropping his wife and
children off at a movie theatre, he proceeded to the ship, grabbed the handgun, conducted
some official business, and then drove his car to the deceased’s workplace and afterwards to
his home. By that time, three hours had passed, and he had had ample opportunity to restore
101
his temper. As a result, the Court decided that the requirements of Exception 1 to Section 300
were not applicable. The defendant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in
prison.
This was the last case decided by jury trial. This case was debated hugely among the public.
There was a major criticism about the case. Nanavati had previously served as V. K. Krishna
Menon’s Defence Associate while the latter was High Commissioner to the United Kingdom,
and had gotten close to the Nehrus during that period. Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister
of India at the time of Nanavati’s trial and punishment, and his sister, Vijayalakshmi Pandit,
was Governor of Bombay State. All of these benefits might not have helped Nanavati under
other circumstances, because a pardon could have been perceived by the press and public at
other times as a flagrant abuse of authority to aid a crony of a powerful political family.
Public opinion in the generally conservative country, on the other hand, was overwhelmingly
in favour of Nanavati, who was viewed as an upright navy commander with middle-class
ideals and a strong sense of honour. Nanavati had served three years in prison, and it was
thought that granting him clemency would enrage the Sindhi community, to whom the Ahuja
family belonged. Around this time, the government received a pardon plea from Bhai Pratap,
a Sindhi businessman who had been convicted of abusing an import licence and had been a
participant in the Indian independence struggle. The government was inclined to pardon Bhai
Pratap because of his history as a freedom warrior and the minor nature of his transgression.
Finally, even Mamie Ahuja, the deceased’s sister, signed an application for Nanavati’s
pardon. In writing, she consented to his pardon. Bhai Pratap and Nanavati were finally
pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, the Governor of Maharashtra at the time. This case is also
an epitome of the influence of media trials.
In Shankar Diwal Wadu. v. State Of Maharastra (2008), according to the prosecution, the
accused Shankar Wadu is the brother of Mahu Wadu, who was assaulted by him and died as a
result of the assault. The event occurred on October 22, 1996, in Kaimad Wadu Pada, Laluka
Wada, Thane, where both the accused and the victim, as well as other close relatives, lived.
The accused sought to maintain Kamlibai, the widow of his brother Vasant, as his mistress,
according to the prosecution evidence, but she refused. The appellant was violently dragging
Kamlibai to his residence on the day of the occurrence. His brother Mahu (the deceased) told
him at the time that he couldn’t force and pull Kamlibai to his residence. The accused became
outraged by such unsolicited advice and lifted a wooden plank (Pat) and whacked Mahur on
102
the head with it, as well as kicking and punching him. Mahu died instantly. Yeshubai, a close
relative of both the offender and the victim, filed a complaint alleging his attack. The
investigation was launched after receiving this complaint, and the accused was detained. The
prosecution called up to eight witnesses to establish its accusation of murder against the
accused, and the learned trial judge, after weighing the evidence, found the accused guilty
and sentenced him to life in prison under section 302 / 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as well
as a fine of Rs.50,000.
Exception II : right of private defence
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 tries to horsewhip A, but not in a way that causes him serious injury. A pulls a handgun
from his pocket. The attack against Z continues. A, believing in good faith that there is no
other way to avoid being horsewhipped, shoots Z to death. A has merely committed culpable
homicide, not murder.
Under some circumstances, the right of private defence even extends to the infliction of
death. This Section applies when a person’s right to private defence has been violated. It
should be noted that the fact that a person has exercised his right to private defence beyond
its limits does not completely exonerate him or her under this exemption. It is only used as a
mitigating element to lessen the crime from murder to culpable homicide that does not
constitute murder. Of course, before this exception may be invoked, it must be established
that the accused has the right to a private defence under Sections 96-106 of the IPC. The
question of whether the accused has exceeded his right to private defence will arise only once
the existence of the right has been proved. If it seems that the accused does not have the right
to a private defence in the first instance, then this provision will not apply.
Nathan v. State of Madras
103
The accused and his wife were in possession of some land that they had been farming for
some years in Nathan v. State of Madras (1972). They had fallen behind on their lease
payments to the landlady. The accused was forcibly evicted, and the landlord attempted to
harvest the crop. As a result, the accused killed the dead in the exercise of his right to private
property defence. The Supreme Court agreed with the claim that the incident occurred when
the accused was exercising his legal right to private defence against the property. The right to
private property defence was restricted to the degree of causing any harm other than death
under Section 104, IPC because the deceased person was not armed with any lethal weapons
and there could not have been any fear of death or severe harm on the part of the accused and
his party. As a result, the accused’s right to private defence was violated, and the case was
classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 2 to Section 300 of
the Indian Penal Code because the act was done in good faith and without the intent to cause
death. The accused’s death sentence was commuted to a term of life in prison.
Exception III : lawful act of a public servant
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, while acting as a public servant or assisting
a public servant acting for the benefit of public justice, exceeds the powers granted to him by
law and causes death by doing an act that he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and
necessary for the proper discharge of his duty as such public servant and without malice
toward the person who is killed.
The following are the essential elements of this exception:
The offence must have been committed by a public servant or a person assisting a public
servant;
The alleged act must have been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his
official duties;
He must have exceeded the powers granted to him by law;
The act must have been done in good faith; and
The public servant should have thought that his actions were legal and required for the proper
fulfilment of his duties, and
104
He should not have harboured any hatred toward the individual who died as a result of his
actions.
In Dakhi Singh v. State (1955), a suspected thief was apprehended by a police officer and
was being transported to a railway station. The robber was able to flee the speeding train. He
was chased by the constable. He fired at him because he was unable to arrest him. However,
he hit the fireman and killed him in the process. The case was found to be covered by this
exception.
Exception IV : sudden conflict
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in the heat of emotion during a sudden
conflict and without the offenders taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual
manner.
The only requirements for this exception are that:
the murder be committed without premeditation;
it is committed in a sudden fight;
it is committed in the heat of passion;
it is committed upon a sudden quarrel; and
It is committed without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual
manner.
In Manke Ram v. State of Haryana (2003), the Supreme Court granted the benefit of
exception 4 to a police inspector who killed his subordinate in a bizarre combination of
circumstances. In his chamber, he asked the deceased to drink. While they were drinking, the
deceased’s nephew entered the room and summoned him for supper. As the deceased rose to
leave the room, the appellant became enraged and began insulting him in obscene terms,
which the deceased objected to. This enraged the appellant even more. Between the two of
them, a brawl erupted. The appellant took out his service handgun and fired two bullets at the
deceased, who was standing close. These shots were lethal. The Supreme Court overturned
the Punjab High Court’s conviction under Section 302 of the Code, finding that the incident
occurred in the heat of passion and granting the petitioner the benefit of exception 4. It was
105
decided that, given the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant did
not take unfair advantage of the fight or conduct in an unusual or harsh manner.
Exception V : death with consent
Culpable homicide is not murdered if the dead individual is beyond the age of eighteen years
and suffers or risks death with his consent.
Illustration
A intentionally causes Z, a minor under the age of eighteen, to commit suicide by instigation.
Because Z’s young, he was unable to consent to his own death; as a result, A had aided and
abetted murder.
The following things must be proven:
The death was induced with the deceased’s permission;
The deceased was over the age of 18 at the time; and
The consent provided was free and voluntary, and not based on fear or a misunderstanding of
facts.
In the case of Narendra v. State of Rajasthan (2014), the deceased was a married woman
named Nathi who had left her house and was living with her parents. There, she became close
to the accused Narendra, and the two expressed their desire to marry. Because they belonged
to the same gotra, the villagers were opposed to their desire to marry. Due to their
dissatisfaction with the villagers’ rejection of their love, both of them agreed to commit
suicide. Other villagers saw the accused inflicting harm on the corpse one day, but the victim
had already died before they could save her. Although the accused had stab wounds in his
abdomen, he was prevented from killing himself. The High Court found no evidence on the
record that the deceased gave his free and voluntary consent. Later, the case reached the
Supreme Court, where justices emphasised facts such as the fact that the deceased did not
raise an alarm, that the accused was injured, and that he did not have a weapon when he
entered the residence. Taking into account these facts, the Court found in favour of the
deceased, awarding him benefits under Exception 5.
Difference between culpable homicide and murder
106
The genus is culpable homicide, and the species is murder. All culpable homicides are
murders, but not all culpable homicides are murders. So the distinction is between culpable
homicide that amounts to murder and culpable homicide that does not amount to murder. The
sole distinction between culpable homicide and murder is the degree of purpose and
knowledge involved. The case would be classified as murder if there was a high level of
purpose and knowledge. The case would be classified as responsible homicide if there was a
lesser degree of purpose or knowledge. As a result, establishing categorical demarcations
between culpable homicide and murder is challenging.
Intention
Clause (a) of Section 299 and clause (1) of Section 300 are the same. It is culpable homicide
under Section 299 if death is caused by an act done with the goal of causing death (a). Unless
one of the exceptions applies, it also amounts to murder under cl (1) of Section 300.
Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death
Both Section 299 clause (b) and Section 300 clauses 2 and 3 deal with the purpose to inflict
physical damage that is likely to result in death. In terms of Section 299(b), it simply states
that if death is caused by an act committed with the goal of causing physical damage likely to
cause death, it is considered a culpable homicide. While clause (2) of Section 300 states that
an act must be done with the goal of inflicting bodily damage that is likely to result in death,
it also states that the deliberate causation of bodily injury must be accompanied by the
knowledge that the bodily injury is likely to result in death.
The term ‘likely’ in Section 299(b) refers to a simple possibility or likelihood that the harm
may result in death. However, the word ‘likely’ in clause (2) of Section 300 conveys, to some
extent, death certainty. This is explained in illustration (b) to Section 300. It implies that the
accused has some unique knowledge of the deceased’s state, such as any ailment he may be
suffering from, and that this information adds certainty to the fact that the bodily damage
would result in death. The sole difference between the meanings of the words ‘likely’ in
Sections 299(b) and 300(2) is the degree of likelihood.
In the case of clause (3) of Section 300, the purpose to inflict bodily damage is accompanied
by the certainty that such physical injury is sufficient to cause death in the regular course of
nature. The word ‘sufficient’ in the regular course of nature to cause death, like the phrase
107
‘likely’ in Section 299, imputes the certainty of death to a higher extent (b). Thus, the
essential difference between death under Sections 299(b) and 300(2) and (3) is that under
Section 299(b), the bodily injury caused is less likely to result in death, whereas under
Section 300(2) and (3), the bodily injury caused is more likely to result in death.
Knowledge
Sections 299(c) and 300(4) deal with situations in which the accused has information that the
act is likely to result in death. The need for knowledge under Section 300(4) is a very high
degree of risk of death, similar to the preceding Sections. This high probability of death is
indicated in the clause’s final Section, which states that the act must be so immediately
dangerous that it will almost certainly result in death or bodily injury that is likely to result in
death, and that the act must be performed without any justification for taking the risk. Both
clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of 300 apply to circumstances in which the accused
has no intention of causing death or bodily damage but is aware that the act is basically
dangerous. The degree of risk to human life determines whether the conduct is murder or
culpable homicide. It is culpable homicide if death is a potential outcome; it is murder if
death is the most likely outcome.
Vasanth v. State of Maharashtra
There existed prior animosity between the accused and the deceased in Vasanth v. State of
Maharashtra (1983). The accused and the dead were observed fighting. The two were
separated by a few people who were present. The accused then rushed to his vehicle, drove it
on the wrong side of the road and straight into the deceased, knocking him down and driving
over him, killing him. The route on which the accident occurred was broad and lonely. The
accused had no cause or requirement to drive the jeep in the incorrect way. The Supreme
Court ruled that the accused intentionally slammed his jeep into the deceased and ran him
over with the purpose to kill him. It’s worth noting that the first clause of Section 300, ‘act
done with the purpose to cause death,’ is the same as the first clause of Section 299, which is
likewise ‘performing an act with the intent to cause death.’ As a result, an act that falls under
clause (1) of Section 300 will also fall under Section 299, and it will constitute culpable
homicide amounting to murder in both cases.
State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh
108
In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh (2003), the Supreme Court found the
accused guilty of murder for inflicting an incised cut with a sword on the deceased’s neck,
resulting in excessive bleeding and organ failure, on the grounds that he knew the bodily
injury he caused would likely result in death.
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
In Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006), the Court outlined the facets that
courts should consider when deciding whether an act is punishable as murder, culpable
homicide, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and stated that the Court should
proceed with caution when deciding whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or
304 Part II. As a result, it is the responsibility of the courts to ensure that instances of murder
punished under Section 302 are not changed into offences punishable under Section 304 Part
I/II, or that cases of culpable homicide that do not amount to murder are considered as
murder punishable under Section 302. A combination of a few or many of the following,
among other things, can be used to determine the intent to cause death:
The weapon’s properties;
Whether the accused carried the weapon or it was picked up on the spot;
Whether the strike is directed at a critical bodily part;
The amount of force used to injure someone;
Whether the action occurred during a sudden dispute, a sudden fight, or a free-for-all brawl;
If the incident happened by coincidence or was it planned in advance;
Whether there had been any previous animosity or if the deceased was a stranger;
Whether there was any grave and immediate provocation, and if so, what caused it;
Whether it was committed in the heat of emotion;
Whether the person who inflicted the harm acted in a cruel and unusual manner;
109
Whether the accused gave a single blow or multiple strokes. Of course, the preceding list of
conditions is not complete, and there may be other particular circumstances in individual
situations that provide light on the question of purpose.
Punishments for culpable homicide and murder
Section 304 IPC : penalty for culpable homicide that does not amount to murder
If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine; or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine; or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be
liable to fine.
Though the Section itself does not split the Parts in this fashion, the sentence under this
Section is separated into two parts, often referred to as Section 304, Pt I and Section 304, Pt
II. If the conduct is done with the purpose to cause death or physical damage that is likely to
cause death, Section 304, Pt I, specifies a penalty of life imprisonment or imprisonment of
any kind for a term up to ten years and a fine. This sentence refers to Section 299, clauses (a)
and (b).
Section 304, Pt II applies to crimes committed with the knowledge that they are likely to
result in death, but not with the purpose to cause death or bodily damage that is likely to
result in death. This phrase corresponds to Section 299, clause (c). However, if an offence is
committed with the knowledge that it is so dangerous that it must almost certainly result in
death or bodily injury that is likely to result in death, and the act is committed without
justification, the offence is removed from the scope of Section 304, Pt II and brought under
Section 302, as the offence would amount to murder under Section 300(4).
In the case of Vishwanath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959), the accused stabbed the dead with
a knife that penetrated his heart as the deceased was attempting to carry away the accused’s
wife and sister by force. The Supreme Court ruled that the suit fell under Section 304,
paragraph II.
Section 302 : murder
110
Murder is punishable under Section 302. It specifies a penalty of death or life imprisonment,
as well as a monetary fine. If a court finds an offender guilty of murder under Section 300,
the court must sentence the criminal to death or life imprisonment. No other lesser
punishment can be imposed by the court.
In 1973, the Code of Criminal Procedure was updated again, making life imprisonment the
rule. The judge’s ability to impose a death sentence has been limited by Section 354(3) of the
new Code, which requires the court to establish particular reasons for imposing a death
sentence. When it comes to assigning a penalty for murder, it has now made life
imprisonment the rule and death sentence the exception.
Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State
In Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State (2005), the Apex Court permitted the accused, a doctor,
who was engaged in many murders of his in-laws, to be sentenced to life in jail. The court,
however, barred him from collecting any remissions on auspicious occasions in order to serve
as a deterrent. Similarly, in Lehna case (2002), the Supreme Court declared the death penalty
imposed by the trial court and upheld by the high court on the accused of murdering his
mother, brother, and sister-in-law to be unconstitutional and commuted it to life
imprisonment, reasoning that the multiple murders, while brutal, were not the result of
diabolic and sinister planning.
Suggestions
Though the categories of murder and culpable homicide appear to be similar in certain ways,
they differ in terms of the degree of probability of death, or the gravity of the unlawful act. If
the act committed by the offender is either a horrific crime or particularly hazardous conduct
that results in the death of a person with no other consequences, it is more likely to be
classified as murder than culpable homicide. If the offender’s conduct leaves the victim alive
but in grave pain with a possibility of survival, it is referred to as culpable homicide, which is
not the same as murder. Crimes such as rape and murder are becoming increasingly
dangerous to women and children. According to recent estimates, these crime rates are rising
every day. To address this, legislators may consider enacting legislation that includes
deterrence theory and consequences. As a result, this idea may help to lower crime rates.
There will be a decline in crime when punishments are strengthened.
111
People are often confused by the terms homicide, murder and manslaughter. When reading
the newspaper, they wonder why one defendant gets life for murder, while another person
gets probation for manslaughter, which, in a way, sounds worse than murder. It even gets
more confusing when people are confronted with terms like felony murder. After all, aren’t
all murders felonies?
Homicide is simply the killing of one person by another. It may or may not be illegal.
Soldiers in battle commit homicide without committing a crime. Citizens kill intruders
without committing a crime. So, what is it that separates a legal homicide from an illegal
murder? And, what makes one killing a murder and another a manslaughter?
Murder is a homicide committed with “malice aforethought.” That doesn’t mean it is a

malicious killing. Malice aforethought is the common law way of saying that it is an
unjustified killing. And, for a killing to be a murder, there typically has to be either an intent
to kill, or, at minimum, conduct so reckless that it is punishable as murder.
Murder usually is broken down into degrees. First degree murder punishes premeditated
killings, the killing of especially vulnerable people (such as children), and unintended killings
done while intentionally committing another serious felony. This last kind of first degree
murder is called felony murder.
Most people equate premeditation with long term planning. However, in most criminal codes
premeditation doesn’t mean that the killing was planned for weeks or days. Premeditation
often is defined as any planning or design to cause the death before the act of killing
occurred. Second degree murder usually includes all intentional killings that are not
premeditated, and some killings that resulted from conduct so reckless it showed a grave
indifference to the sanctity of human life or the welfare of others.
There have even been cases when a defendant has been convicted of felony murder for the
death of his co-conspirator. Two robbers go into a liquor store to steal some cash. The clerk
pulls out a gun and shoots one of the robbers dead. The other robber is charged with felony
murder because his co-robber was killed during the commission of a felony in which he
participated! The scary thing about felony murder is that it is punishable as if you were the
actual murderer. In many states, the person charged with felony murder does not need to
have any actual knowledge that his co-conspirator was armed or planned to kill anyone else.
112
Rather, the standard is whether it was foreseeable that someone might have been killed
during the crime.
Manslaughter is typically treated as a much less severe crime than murder. Manslaughter can
be broken up into degrees, or categorized as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of another person under extreme provocation or while
under the heat of passion. Typically, it does not require an intent to kill, but rather than the
intent to do something else. Felony manslaughter occurs when a person participates in a
crime that isn’t listed in the felony murder statute (which usually includes the most dangerous
kinds of felonies), but somehow someone dies during the crime. Involuntary manslaughter
usually involves acts of negligence or recklessness that lead to another person’s death.
Vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter – causing a person’s death through driving
while intoxicated – can be charged on its own or as part of involuntary manslaughter,
depending on the laws of a particular state.
Though both the concepts of murder and culpable homicide seem to be same in certain sense
they differ in the aspect of degree of probability of death or it can be said as the seriousness
of act of the crime. If the act done by the offender is either a heinous crime or it be a very
dangerous act that causes only death to a person, without any other result it would aptly fall
under the concept if Murder and not Culpable homicide. If such an act by the offender leaves
the victim to be alive with some grievous hurt with chance of escaping death, then it is said to
be a Culpable homicide which does not amount to murder.
There are growing threats to women and children by crimes like rape and murder. The recent
reports say that these crime rates increase day by day. To resolve this, the legislations shall
consider giving deterrent theory and punishments mentioned in it. Thus, the crime rates may
gat reduced by this theory. When there is increase in punishments, there is a decrease in
crimes. Murder is a crime for which the punishment may be prescribed as death penalty with
implementation of the deterrent theory.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Constitution and Acts
113
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Books
1. Indian Penal Code by S.N. Mishra

2. General Principles of Criminal Law by Jerome Hall
3. Law of Crimes in India: Principles of Criminal Law by R. C. Nigam
4. Russell on Crime by J. W. Cecil Turner
5. The Fundamental of Criminal Law by Paul H. Robinson
6. PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law by K. I. Vibhute
7. Ratanlal and Dhirjlal s Law of Crimes, a commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860
by Justice C. K. Thakker and M. C. Thakker
8. Kenny’s Outline of Criminal Law by J. W. Cecil Turner
9. The Criminal Law by J. C. Smith and Brian Hogan
10. Essays on the Indian Penal Code by K. N. Chandrasekharan Pillai
11. Penal Law of India BY Hari Singh
12. The Text book of Criminal Law by Glanville Williams
Websites
1. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/analysis-of-intention-to-cause-death-with-
respect-to-culpable-homicide/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime last visited on 8/17/2010
3. http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=9613893&cv=2.0&cj=1 last visited on
7/12/2012
4. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/latestnews/
5. CSR_Voluntary_Guidelines_24dec2009.pdf, accessed 2 February 2011.
6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1348425, accessed 3 February 2012.
7. http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp, accessed 3 February 2011.
8. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/832836/
9. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1255592/
10. http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/ south asia/7066019.stm. accessed 3 February 2011.
114
11. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2004/12/22/stories/
2004122202951200.htm,accessed 3 February 2013; J Venkatsean, Slap Exemplary
Costs for PIL Abuse: SupremeCourt, in The Hindu, 25 January 2010,
http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/25/stories/2010012555711100.htm, accessed 3
February 2013.
12. http://www.mdiaseminar.com /2004/544/ 544%20fali%20s.%20nariman.htm,
accessed 3 February 2011.
13. http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/legal-provisions-regarding-murder-
under-section-300-of-indian-penal-code-1860/119092
14. http://www.lex-warrier.in/2015/11/ingredients-of-culpable-homicide-under-section-
299/
15. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/
16. http://nikkilogan.com.au/six-types-of-murder-and-three-types-of-manslaughter/
17. http://www.childlabor.in/bonded-child-labour-in-india.htm, accessed 3 February
2011.
18. http://www.labour.nic.in/annrep/files2kl/lab9.pdf. accessed 3 February 2011.
19. http://labour.nic.in/pib /Press Release /RS%20-%20Bonded%20Laboureres%20in
%20the%20country%201-12-2010.pdf, accessed 3 February 2011.
20. http://labour,nic.in/pib/PressRelease/LS-Working%20children%20in%20the%20age
%20group%20of%205-14%20years-29-ll-10.pdf, accessed 3 February 2011.
21. https://www.karenalexanderlaw.com/criminal-defense/articles/4-classifications-of-
homicide/
22. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-culpable-homicide-and-an-
attempt-tomurder
23. http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Distinction-between-Culpable-Homicide-
and-Murder-8591.asp
24. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Salman-Khans-hit-and-run-case-What-is-
culpablehomicide/articleshow/47173696.cms
25. https://www.firstpost.com/india/delhi-drunk-driving-case-accused-charged-with-
culpablehomicide-2833278.html https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/high-
profile-murder-caseswith-family-members-as-killers-54047.html
26. https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/AhmadFarouqAmir/2-exceptions-to-section-300
115
27. https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/crimes-in-india-rise-in-2018-as-
compared-to-lastyear-murder-rapes-see-a-spike-says-this-report/1080222/
28. http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/guidelines-as-to-whether-the-offence-
ismurder-or-culpable-homicide-not-amounting-to-murder-indian-penal-code-
1860/111705
29. https://criminallaw.freeadvice.com/criminallaw/violent_crimes/degrees.murder.htm
116

Manslaughter and Culpable Homicide Under The Ipc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manslaughter and Culpable Homicide Under The Ipc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manslaughter and Culpable Homicide Under The Ipc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A DISSERTATION

MANSLAUGHTER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE UNDER

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award

Under the supervision of: Submitted by:

Dr. ………….. ……….

Assistant Professor Roll No.: ……………

DELHI NCR, BAHADURGARH

DATE- LL.M (Final year)

I am thankful to FACULTY OF LAW, JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY for providing me an

I am fortunate to be provided with an opportunity to write my dissertation under the kind

ADR Association of Democratic Reforms

1. State v Sikora 44 N.J. 453, 210 a. 2d. 193 (1965)

There are basically three categories of manslaughter namely, voluntary manslaughter,

Involuntary manslaughter is when the perpetrator’s unintentional actions or his or her

Vehicular manslaughter is usually referred to as killing another while illegally, negligently, or

Similarity Between Murder and Manslaughter

Both these crimes fall under criminal homicides.

Difference Between Murder and Manslaughter

Murder typically consists of first-degree murder and second-degree murder while

1.1 Lawful and Unlawful Homicide

1.2 Culpable Homicide

As mentioned before culpable homicide is a type of unlawful homicide. Laws regarding

 The intention of causing death.

D dies because of the bursting of the tumour.

A is liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

1.4 Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder

The intention of causing death.

X is liable for Murder.

1.5 Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1862

It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if it is committed by a person who gets

1.6 Essential Ingredients

Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder

 The intention of causing death.

Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder

 The intention of causing death.

He plans to kill Mr B. In order to achieve that he Buys a gun.

He spots Mr B on the street. He takes out his gun and shoots Mr B.

Accidentally the bullet deflects because of a pole and eventually kills Mr C.

Now according to the law, Mr A has committed culpable homicide.

It is also regarded as the principle of transferred intent or transferred knowledge or doctrine

1.8 Section 304 of IPC

1.9 Section 302 of IPC

Death penalty under Section 302

 When the murder committed is extremely brutal, ridiculous, diabolical, revolting, or

1.10 Section 299 IPC (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder)

1.11 Section 300 IPC (Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder)

Exceptions of Section 300 IPC

Section 302 IPC

1.12 Major differences between culpable homicide and murder

As mentioned by Sir James Stephen, it is extremely difficult to distinguish between Culpable

CHAPTER 2 : CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

CHAPTER 3 : INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH WITH RESPECT TO CULPABLE

CHAPTER 4 : CULPABLE HOMICIDE : DETAILED ANALYSIS (SEC. 299)

CHAPTER 5 : MURDER – DETAILED ANALYSIS (SECTION 300)

CHAPTER 6 : PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

CHAPTER 7 : CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER : AN ANALYSIS

2.2 Lawful and unlawful Homicide

2.2.1 Lawful Homicide

2.2.2 Unlawful Homicides