CULPABLE HOMICIDE (NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER) AND MURDER

Homicide has been derived from Latin word homi meaning man and cido meaning cut. The
word means killing of a human being by another human being. Every homicide is not unlawful
eg: execution of death penalty, death caused by Doli Incapax etc.

Lawful Homicide: Saved by General Exception under chapter IV of the IPC

Unlawful Homicide:
1. Culpable homicide (s. 299, 301)
2. Murder (s.300)
3. Death by rash and negligent act (s. 304A)
4. Dowry death (s. 304B)

I. CULPABLE HOMICIDE (CH)

Section 299 of the IPC: Whoever causes death by doing an act,
1. With intention to cause death; or
2. With the intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death; or
3. With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death,
commits the offence of CH.

Ingredients of section 299:

1. There must be death of a person
2. Death should be a consequence of act of another person, and
3. That person should have acted with:
a. With intention to cause death; or
b. With the intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death; or
c. With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
NOTE: Read illustrations from the Bare act.

Explanations to Sec 299

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.

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

 (The person who caused the injury cannot escape criminal liability of CH by stating that if
the person injured wasn’t suffering from any disease or disorder, he would not have died.)
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.
(the person who causes injury here cant escape from the criminal liability on the ground
that the injured person would have not died if he was treated in time.)
3. The causing of the death of child in the mother’s womb is not 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 have breathed or been completely born.

In R v Govinda 1876 ILR Bom 342, the accused had knocked his wife down, put one knee on
her chest, and struck her two or three violent blows on the face with the closed fist, producing
extraversion of blood on the brain and she died in consequence, either on the spot, or very
shortly afterwards, there being no intention to cause death and the bodily injury not being
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was liable for culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
(a copy of judgement and video illustration is shared)

 Section 301: CH by causing death of person other than the person whose death was
intended:
If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commit
culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends not
knows himself to be likely to cause, the CH 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.
Eg: A intending to shoot B runs after him at night. B hides behind bushes in C’s land. A seeing
the movement near the bushes, found out that B was hiding there. A shot at the bush and the
bullet hit C’s employee who was the caretaker of the land as he was sleeping there. B escaped.
Here, A is liable for committing the offence of CH under section 301.

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

II. MURDER
 Section 300 of the IPC
 Subject to certain Exceptions, CH is murder, if the act by which death is caused is done:
a. With the intention of causing death; or
b. With 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; or
c. With the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
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 like to cause death and committed
without any excuse for incurring risk or causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

NOTE: Read illustrations from the Bareact.

(Where all these requirements are fulfilled, CH will then amount to murder, provided it
does not fall under any of the exceptions to section 300)

In Visra Singh v State of Punjab (1958), the accused thrust a spear into the abdomen of the
deceased. This injury caused his death. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was found by the Sessions judge that the
accused intended to cause grievous hurt only. This attracted the third clause of s 300 Indian
Penal Code. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused under s 302 for muder. On
an appeal to the High Court, the conviction was. The defence argued that third clause of s.300
of IPC did not apply as it was not proved that the accused intended to inflict a bodily injury
that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Section 300, third clause
states, " If it is done 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 court dismissed the appeal and held that the prosecution must prove the following before
it can bring a case under cl. 3 of s. 300 of the IPC:
1. It must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present.
2. The nature of the injury must be proved; these are purely objective investigations.

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

 3. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to
say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was
intended.
4. It must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements
set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the
intention of the offender. The third clause of S. 300 Indian Penal Code consists of two parts.
Under the first part, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is
found to be present and under the second part, it must be proved that the injury was sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The words " and the bodily injury intended to
be inflicted " are merely descriptive. All this means is, that it is not enough to prove that the
injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; it must
in addition be shown that the injury found to be present was the injury intended to be inflicted.
Whether it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is a matter of inference
or deduction from the proved facts about the nature of the injury and has nothing to do with
the question of intention.
(a copy of judgement and video illustration is shared)

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

When CH is not Murder:
1. Logically, when all the requirement of section 299 are met but of section 300 are not
fulfilled.
2. Also, when all the requirements of section 300 are fulfilled but the matter falls under
any of the 5 exception to section 300. (dealt below)

What are those five Exceptions?

[REMEMBER: THESE EXCEPTIONS DO NOT ABSOLUTELY ABSOLVE THE
LIABILITY FOR THE ACT OF KILLING. THESE ONLY ALTER THE DEGREE OF CH
AND MITIGATE THE PUNISHMENT. THESE EXCEPTIONS MAKE SUCH ACTS OF
KILLING CH THAT DOESN’T AMOUNT TO MURDER. THEREFORE, THE ACCUSED
IN SUCH CASES SHALL BE PUNISHED FOR COMMITTING CH]

Exception 1: Grave and Sudden Provocation

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control
by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or
causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to
the following provisos:—
1. That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse
for killing or doing harm to any person.
2. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a
public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
3. That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right
of private defence.
Explanation- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence
from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
 A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally
kills. Y, Z’s child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the
child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an
act caused by the provocation.

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

  Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y,
neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of
sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
 A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the
arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing
done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
 A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of
A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these
words, and kills Z. This is murder.
 A attempts to pull Z’s nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold
of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in
consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by
a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
 Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending
to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s hand for
that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homi-
cide, but A is guilty of murder.

In K M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra, (Bollywood film- Rustom) the accused was a naval
officer married with three children. One day his wife confessed to him that she had developed
intimacy with the deceased. In the rage at this, the accused went to his ship, took a semi-
automatic revolver and 6 cartridges from the store of the ship, went to the flat of the deceased,
entered his bedroom and shot him dead. Thereafter, the accused surrendered himself to the
police. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the act of the accused could be set
to fall within exception 1 of section 300 IPC Supreme Court laid down the following postulates
relating to grave and sudden provocation:
1. The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to
the same class society as the accused, placed in the situation in which accused was
placed, would be so provoked as to lose a self-control.
2. In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and
sudden provocation to an accused, so as to bring his act within the first exception to
section 300 of IPC

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

 3. The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into
consideration in a certain whether the subsequent at cause grave and sudden
provocation for committing the offence.
4. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that
provocation and not after the passion had cool down by lapse of time, or otherwise
giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.
The Supreme Court held that the accused, after his wife confessed to the illicit relationship
with the deceased, may have momentarily lost control. He had thereafter dropped his wife and
children at a cinema, went to the ship, collected the revolver, did some official business there,
drove his car to the office of the deceased and later to his house. Three hours had passed by
then and therefore, there was sufficient time for him to regain his self-control. In view of this,
the court held that the provisions of exception 1 to section 300 of IPC were not attracted. The
accused was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

In Hansa Singh v State of Punjab, 1977, the accused saw the deceased committing an act of
sodomy on his son, which enraged him and he killed the deceased. It was held that this
amounted to a grave and sudden provocation. Hence, the conviction under section 302 was set
aside. He was convicted under section 304 of the IPC
In cases where there is a grave provocation but not sudden the court may consider that gravity
as a mitigating factor. In Francis v State of Kerala 1974, the deceased had, on two previous
occasions, attacked the accused's brother and brother-in-law. Accused was in constant fear of
attack from the deceased to the lives and safety of the near and dear ones. Accused killed the
deceased. The court reduced his sentence to life imprisonment even though the earlier incidents
of attack on his family did not constitute sudden and grave provocation.

Exception 2 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 attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A
draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other
means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder,
but only culpable homicide.

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

A person has a right of private defence of property and person. This right can even extend to
causing death of a person under certain circumstances. This clause under IPC deals with those
cases where a person has succeeded his right of private defence and killed another person but
it would not be just to punish them for the offence of murder. This clause plays a role to mitigate
the punishment to be given to such persons who commit an act of killing exceeding their right
of private defence.

Exception 3- Act of Public Servant

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

Exception 4- Sudden Fight

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 having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the
first assault.
‘Fight’ is not defined under IPC. It means more than verbal quarrels. It involves exchange of
blows. Attack by one party and retreat by another is not a fight. A Sudden Fight or a Free fight
is where both sides mean to fight from the start. This means that there is a pitched battle. The
question of who attacks and who defends in a free fight is irrelevant in deciding the liability
for the outcome of such fight.

In Pran Das v State (1954), the accused inflicted three blows with an axe on the deceased. The
latter was unarmed and there was no aggression on his part. The accused was held guilty of
murder and not saved by this clause. The court held that a fight is a bilateral transaction of
blows. When the aggression is only on one side, it cant be said to be a fight.

In Sukhbir Singh v State of Haryana (2002), a sudden quarrel arose because of over splashing
of mud while cleaning the street by deceased’s son with the deceased and his son on one side

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

and accused on the other side. The deceased gave two slaps to the accused who was at no fault.
The accused went home that was nearby and came back armed with a group of people to fight
back. He gave two blows to the deceased with a rod and thereafter others hit him with the
weapons. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. Punjab HC convicted the accused under
section 302 for murder by brutal and inhuman means. The SC set aside this conviction and
employed this exception dealing with sudden fights. The court held that the time gap was not
enough to enable the accused to premeditate death. The court held that sudden fight must follow
sudden quarrel. If there is sufficient time between the two to allow premeditation of death, this
exception shall not be attracted.

Exception 5- Death by Consent

Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age
of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Illustration A,
by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide.
Here, on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has
therefore abetted murder.
In Dasrath Paswan v State of Bihar, the accused who failed in 10th grade thrice decided to end
his life and infirmed his wife that he is going to do so. His wife, 19 years old literate woman,
asked him to kill her first. In pursuance of this pact he killed his wife but got arrested before
killing himself. Patna HC relying on this exception convicted him under Part 1 of section 304
(refer to the degree of homicide discussed later).

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

III. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Murder and culpable homicide seem to be more similar to each other, but they are not
synonymous to each other. Where Section 299 of Indian Penal Code defines Culpable homicide
and Section 300 of Indian Penal Code deals with concept of Murder. These terms always snarl
up the one who starts leaning these concepts.
Both CH and murder are acts of Killing of a human. CH is the genus and murder is its Specie.
All murders are CH but all CHs are not murder.

CH
Murder

There are practically three degrees of CH recognised under IPC:

Sl. No. Degrees of CH Recognised under Punishable under IPC

IPC as
1. CH of the first- Murder u/s 300 u/s 302 with death or Life
degree Imprisonment with or without fine
2. CH of the second- CH not amounting Imprisonment up to10 years or life
degree to murder imprisonment with or without fine.
(Part I of section 304)
3. CH of the third- CH not amounting Fine or imprisonment up to 10
degree to murder years or both (Part II of section
304)

From the above it is clear that there is no radical difference between Murder and CH. The true
difference lies in the degrees of intention and knowledge. A greater degree of intention or
knowledge, the case shall fall under murder. A lesser degree of intention or knowledge, the
case shall fall under CH. It is therefore, not really possible to have a strait jacket formula to
establish difference between CH and Murder.

Compiled by PREETY ANAND

Read the table below to analyse the difference in degree of intention and knowledge between
sec 299: Culpable Homicide and sec 300: Murder.

Section 299 Culpable homicide Sec 300 Murder

A person commits CH if the act Subject to certain Exceptions, CH is murder, if the act by
by which death is caused is which death is caused is done:
done:
a) With the intention of a. With the intention of causing death;
causing death;
b) With the intention of b. With the intention of causing such bodily injury,
causing such bodily as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
injury as is likely to death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
cause death; c. With the intention of causing such bodily injury to
any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death.
c) With the knowledge d. With the knowledge that the act is so imminently
that the act is likely to dangerous that it must in all probability cause
cause death death, or such bodily injury as is like to cause death
and committed without any excuse for incurring
risk or causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

The key difference that can be made out between section 299 and 300, subject to the exceptions
under 300 is the degree of likelihood of death. There is a greater Degree of likelihood of death
or greater probability of death, in Murder under section 300.

NOTE: This is not an exhaustive content on the topic. Kindly refer to other important
cases as per the lecture and text books. Kindly bring to my notice, if any error in grammar
or content is discovered.

Compiled by PREETY ANAND