JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

FACULTY OF LAW

LAW OF CRIMES

Project on: CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Submitted by: ARBAZ KHAN(ROLL N0. 16)

B.A.LL.B (HONS) IIIrd Semester Jamia Millia Islamia
Batch of 2018- 2023
Submitted to: Dr. SAMIA KHAN
FACULTY OF LAW
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
INTRODUCTION
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. All
cases of homicide are not culpable (punishable). Law distinguishes between lawful and unlawful
homicide. For instances, killing in self-defense in pursuance of a lawful authority or by reason of
mistake of 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. 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 1.
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. 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
1
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860P. 489 (35th Edition of 2017, LexisNexis, New Delhi
manslaughter under English law which is genus, and then murder (Section 300, I.P.C) which is
species of homicide.

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)2
 Where the death is caused justifiably, that is to say,
By a person, who is bound, or by mistake of fact in good faith believes himself bound, by
law (s.76)
 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)
 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)
 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)

2
K.D. Gaur “ The Commentary on Indian Penal Code” ( 2nd ed 2013),Universal Law Publishing Co, New Delhi
 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
 He or, if a minor or lunatic, his guardian, has expressly or impliedly consented to such an
act (ss. 87, 88); or
 Where it is impossible for the person killed to signify his consent or where he is
incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian from 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:
 An act with the intention of causing death.
 An act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
 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.
 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:-
 Causing of death of a human being.
 Such death must have been caused by 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 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

Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder

When not murder culpable homicide is a crime by itself. As stated above a situation must first
become culpable homicide before it becomes murder.

Acts under grave and sudden provocation

When a person losses self-control on account of certain situation and causes the death of some
person. The provocation must be grave, it must be sudden that is there must be no scope for pre
meditation and thirdly, it must not be self-invited so as to use it as an excuse to deprive a person
of his/ her life.

Illustration
A returns from the office and sees his wife, B, in a compromising position with Z in his
bedroom. A turn out of the room and kills Z next day. It is case of Murder and not Culpable
because A had sufficient time to cool down his anger.

When private Defense is exceeded in good faith

In exercising private defense either with respect to property or person, if person accidently
exceeds his or her right in good faith or in wrong judgment and the act causes the death of a
person, the act is culpable homicide and not murder.

Illustration
Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause a grievous hurt to A. A draw out a
pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent
himself from being horsewhipped shoots Z dead. A has not committed Murder, but only
Culpable homicide.
Exceeding the Ambit of discharging public duties
When an officer or public servant exceeds his or her mandate of duties or authority given to him
or an officer or public servant assisting him exceeds the same, it is considered culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.

When death is caused in sudden fight or heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

When death is caused of a person above eighteen years of age who voluntarily took the risk of
death.
When death is caused in a situation where a person has by his own consent put himself to risk the
same would be culpable homicide and not murder.3

Illustration
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years of age of commit suicide.
Here, on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has
therefore abetted murder.

Distinguish between Culpable Homicide and 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. A
lesser degree of intention or knowledge, the case would fall under culpable homicide.
 However, it is difficult to arrive at any categorical demarcations or strait jacket difference
between culpable homicide and murder.[6]

Requirement of Intention
Culpable Homicide requires that the offender should have the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to result in death. This means that so long as the person inflicting the injuries is
doing so intentionally she/he has the requisite mental element. it is a question for the court to
decide if the injuries inflicted on the victim were such that they were likely to result in death.

3
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (35th Edition of 2017, LexisNexis, New Delhi
The section does not specify a requirement that the person should that these injuries are such
they will result in the death of the person on whom they are inflicted.

Culpable Homicide is murder if a person intentionally causes some bodily injury to a person, and
the bodily injury such that it is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Requirement of knowledge
Culpable Homicide requires that the offender have the knowledge that the act committed by her/
him is such that it is likely to result in death. On the other hand, Murder requires that the person
committing the act have the knowledge that the act committed is so imminently dangerous that it
must in all probability cause death.

The position of law related to Culpable Homicide and murder and punishment for the same in
other countries like USA, Canada, Australia, China, Australian, Singapore, and South Africa.

Circumstances For Culpable Homicide

a) 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.

b) 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.4

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 voluntarily caused Z’s death,
whether his words operated circuitously by inducing Z to swallow a poison or throwing Z into
convulsions.”

c) 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.

d) 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

4
PSA Pillas “ Criminal Law”,p.573 ( 12th edn-2014), Lexis Nexis, New Delhi,
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.

e) 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 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. 5

f) 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.

g) 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
5
http://lawtimesjournal.in/culpable-homicide-and-murder/
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 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 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. 6

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. 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

6
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-518-culpable-homicide-versus-murder.html
 in death of the patient held that to establish negligence the general principles of law as
follows may apply:

Ø 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.
Ø 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.
Ø This will depend upon the seriousness of the breach committed by the defendant when
the breach occurred.
Ø 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; There must be death of the person in questiong , The accused must have caused
such death; and 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.7
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).

7
http://lawtimesjournal.in/culpable-homicide-and-murder/
 Rash and Negligent Act 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.8

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

8
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/299.php?Title=Indian%20Penal%20Code,
%201860&STitle=Culpable%20homicide
 engage a lawyer. He may present his case personally. 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.

Case laws
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana9
The Court held that the distinction between knowledge and intention. Knowledge in the context
of Section 299 would, inter alia, mean consciousness or realisation or understanding. The
distinction between the terms “knowledge” and “intention” again is a difference of degrees. An
inference of knowledge that it is likely to cause death must be arrived at keeping in view the fact
situation obtaining in each case. The accused must be aware of the consequences of his act.

Knowledge denotes a bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which the 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.

Rampal Singh v. State of U.P10

The Court held that Sections 299 and 300 of the Code deal with the definition of “culpable
homicide” and “murder”, respectively. In terms of Section 299, “culpable homicide” is described
as an act of causing death: (i) with the intention of causing death, or (ii) with the intention of

9
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2008.
10
Rampal Singh v. State of U.P CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2114 of 2009.
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or (iii) with the knowledge that such an act
is likely to cause death.

As is clear from a reading of this provision, the former part of it, emphasizes on the expression
“intention” while the latter upon “knowledge”. Both these are positive mental attitudes, however,
of different degrees. The mental element in “culpable homicide”, that is, the mental attitude
towards the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. Once an offence is
caused in any of the three stated manners noted above, it would be “culpable homicide”. Section
300, however, deals with “murder” although there is no clear definition of “murder” in Section
300 of the Code. As has been repeatedly held by this Court, “culpable homicide” is the genus
and “murder” is its species and all “murders” are “culpable homicides” but all “culpable
homicides” are not “murders”.

Reg. v. Govinda11, In this case the accused kicked his wife who was 15 years old and gave her a
few blow on the body with the result she fell down on the ground. Then he put one knee on her
chest and struck her a few more blow resulting in her death The lower court convicted him of
murder. There were different opinions amongst the two judges of the High Court and
consequently the matter was referred to a third Judge Justice Melvil, who held the accused guilty
under clause (2) of sec 299 for culpable homicide and sentenced him u's 304 part I on the
grounds that the death was caused with the intention on the part of the accused to cause such
bodily injury as was likely to cause death.

Sarabjeet Singh v. State12, The accused did not have good relation with complainant on account
of sale transaction of piece of land He went to the house and assaulted the complainant and his
wife He also picked up the infant child of the complainant and threw him down on the ground
with force as a result of which the child died some time later. The accused was held guilty under
sec. 304 Part-II.

11
Reg. v. Govinda ILR 1 Bom 342 (1877).
12
Sarabjeet Singh v. State SC 529 AIR (1983).
Nanavati v. State Of Maharashtra13, After the contess of the wife of Nanavati about the illicit
intimacy with Ahuja, Nanavati went directly to the residence of Ahuja with loaded revolver enter
his bed room and shoot him.The court held that it is murder. The act is not attract of provision of
five exception of Sec-300

Ajit Singh v. State14, In this case the accused found his wife and a neighbours in a compromising
position and snot both of them dead It was hold that he was acting under provocation and is
liable for sudden provocation.

The difference between death Possibility in both these concepts:

 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.
 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.

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
13
Nanavati v. State Of Maharashtra AIR 605 (1962).
14
Ajit Singh v. State AIR 856 (1967).
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 evolvement of this subject with time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Books

1. K.D. Gaur “ The Commentary on Indian Penal Code” ( 2nd ed 2013),Universal Law
Publishing Co, New Delhi.
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860P. 489 (35th Edition of 2017,
LexisNexis, New Delhi.
3. PSA Pillas “ Criminal Law”,p.573 ( 12th edn-2014), Lexis Nexis, New Delhi.

Websites Referred

1. http://lawtimesjournal.in/culpable-homicide-and-murder/
2. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/299.php?Title=Indian%20Penal
%20Code,%201860&STitle=Culpable%20homicide
3. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/culpable%20homicide%20cases