SUBMIT CONTENT ABOUT US

Home Blog ▼ Career ▼ Exams ▼ Competitions ▼ Interviews Legal Drafting Opportunities ▼ Study Material More ▼

About Us Home  »  Indian Penal Code ( IPC )   »   Culpable Homicide and Murder: Meaning, Explanation and Di erence Subscribe to our Newsletter

Articles
Culpable Homicide and Murder: Meaning, Explanation Email Submit

Book Review
and Di erence
Courses By Harika Tejavath | March 25, 2020 10 Comments Recent Posts

Moot Court Competitions First Year of Law School

Resume Guide Defamation Law in US: Does It Matter If

The Plainti Is A Public Figure Or Not?
Sponsored Post

What to Expect at a Sentencing Hearing?

Write an Article

Workplace Discrimination Laws in US

Contact Us

Introduction to US Criminal Justice System

Culpable Homicide and Murder: Meaning, Explanation and Di erence | Overview

Culpable Homicide
Other kinds of Culpable Homicide
Murder
Di erence between Culpable Homicide and Murder

This article talks about culpable homicide and murder. It gives a detailed explanation about what are
the sections pertaining to said topics in the Indian Penal Code, its essentials and respective case laws
for a better understanding. The doctrine of transferred Malice, distinction, as well as similarities of
Culpable Homicide and Murder, is explained as there lies very minimal di erentiation between the
two.

I. Culpable Homicide

Homicide is a Latin terminology in which ‘homi’ means human and ‘cido’ means to cut or injury. This
literally means to kill a human being through another being. So, the homicide term is a generic one to
mean the demise of a person by another person or a human species. This does not mean all homicides
are unlawful. There are two types in homicide i.e., Lawful and Unlawful.[1]

Culpable Homicide is an unlawful homicide. Chapter XVI of IPC deals with o ences a ecting the
human body.[2]

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 o ence of
culpable homicide[3]

X 300. Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was
intended.—If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause
First Year of Law School
death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he
1 hour ago
neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by
Privacy - Terms
 the o ender 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 he likely to cause.[4]

Indian Penal Code | Culpable Homicide…

Homicide…
Later bekijk…
bekijk… Delen

Bekijken op

Essentials of Culpable Homicide

The following are the essentials of culpable homicide –

1. There must be “death of a person”

2. Death must be “caused by an act of another”
3. The act must be “coupled with the intention of causing death”
4. “or bodily injuries which are likely to cause death”
5. “or knowledge which is likely that such an act would cause death”

Hence, if the above essentials are satis ed then the person is said to be committed culpable
homicide.

1. Death caused by an act/omission

The rst and foremost essential which must be satis ed to constitute a culpable homicide is that
there must be death or an injury likely dangerous to end a life caused by any act or omission of
another. If the death occurs not by that said act or omission then such o ence is not culpable
homicide. Thus, the act or omission of the accused must be the direct cause of the death of the
victim.

For example, if A shoots B and B dies due to that, it is said to be a culpable homicide as the shooting
of A caused the death of B.

Further, if A shoots B and B who is injured is being treated in a hospital and dies due to some
disorder, disease or bodily in rmity while being treated also amounts to culpable homicide. This
situation shows that A’s shooting is not a direct cause but eventually caused the death of B is also
covered under this category.[5] Furthermore, if in a similar situation B is not treated well and dies due
to injury caused by A by shooting, then that too amounts to culpable homicide.[6]

The act speci es that the death caused to a baby inside the womb of a mother is not covered by this
section, as it is not born yet. But if the baby is even partly out of the womb and then the death is
caused, it is culpable homicide.[7]

In the case of Moti Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the accused shot two gunshots and
caused wounds to the deceased named Gayacharan. These wounds were shot in the
abdomen and were said to be dangerous to his life. The injury was caused on 9th of
February, 1960 and further, the recovery of his wounds or injury was not con rmed due to
lack of evidence for the same. He eventually died on 1st of March, 1960 and the body was
not postmortem before the cremation was done. This leads to the question of law that,
would the situation be covered under the o ence of culpable homicide.

The supreme court held that the fact that the gunshot wounds or injuries are dangerous to life won’t
be su cient for the constitution of culpable homicide, even though the death occurred only three
weeks after the injuries being in icted. The court sought for evidence to be shown that the death
was caused due to those injuries or that the injuries were a part reason for the death of the deceased.

Due to lack of the same, the court held that they cannot hold the accused as responsible for the death
of Gayacharan and stated that the nexus between the main cause of injuries and the death of the
deceased should not be too remote in nature.[8]

X
In another case of Rewa Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the victim, Gyanvatibai was the
First Year of Law School wife of the accused who caused multiple injuries to her by using a knife. She was being

1 hour ago
treated in a hospital and further operated. Subsequently, she was diagnosed with
 hyperpyrexia and due to which her death occurred. She was postmortem and results said
the death was not caused due to injuries rather by hyperpyrexia.

The high court of Madhya Pradesh relied upon section 299 and its explanation 2 for a better
understanding of the given situation. Hence, the court opined that though the injuries were not a
direct cause but were a part reason to the occurrence of her death and held the accused responsible
and conviction took place.[9]

2. Intention of the Person

The next essential which is the main di erence between lawful homicide and unlawful homicide is
men rea. It is the mental element which is fundamental to constitute a crime or an o ence. Culpable
Homicide requires the accused to have “an intention to cause death or the intention to cause bodily
injuries which will lead to death”.[10]

Presence of intention is a factual based question and depends upon the circumstances of each case
and actions of the accused.[11] But in general terms intention means a pre-mediation and
predetermination of a person to kill the other person or to cause deadly injuries to the other person.
Further, if anyone anticipates that his/her/their act would lead to consequences which would cause
death or injuries which are likely to cause death, it would be knowledge.[12]

3. Knowledge of the Person

The section adopts a view wherein there is scope even the knowledge of the person about the
consequences of his act can cause the death of any other person or cause bodily injuries which are
likely to cause death, to constitute intention.

This mental element, may not be premeditated or pre-determined but may be derived from the
awareness of the accused with respect to the consequences of his acts or omissions.[13] This is well
explained in the case of Basdev v. State of Pepsu, where the court distinguished intention and
knowledge –

“Knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases, intention and
knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be
presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no
doubt thin, but it is not di cult to perceive that they connote di erent things.”[14]

Thus, it depends upon the guilty mind of the accused to be aware or have knowledge that his act
would have consequences which are highly probable that it would cause death or deadly injuries.

Who is responsible?

The act says that if an accused causes an act or omission which lead to the death of the other person
is said to have committed culpable homicide and for which intention and/or anticipation of
probability of death plays a major role. But what if, one person is killed but the death is intended to
be caused to some other?

Further, what if the accused killed a person having no intention but does so due to abatement by
another? The act also clears these things in the section itself.

Killing of a person not intended so:

To understand this situation the section provides with few illustrations and one of the illustrations to
section 299 deals with such a situation. The sections 299 to 311 gives us various kinds of culpable
homicides and punishments for the same.
X
The illustration (a) of section 299 which says “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
First Year of Law School
the ground to be rm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the o ence of culpable
1 hour ago
 homicide.” This shows that even though A did not intend to kill any particular person, and if someone
falls prey for it, then it amounts to culpable homicide.[15]

Apart from that, section 301 which says “Culpable homicide by causing the death of a 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, 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 o ender 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 he likely to cause”, can be applied and hold guilty of
culpable homicide.

This is considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder and made punishable under section
304.[16]

Doctrine of transferred Malice

This is a principle used by the court of law known as “Doctrine of Transferred Malice” where the
malice is assumed to be present in the mind of the accused to seek evidence of his intention and in
the absence of the same, it remains culpable homicide and not murder.

It shows that intention of a person is a question of fact and what can be considered as a mitigating
factor here, is the absence of such intention to cause such death or bodily injuries which are likely to
cause death. In such a scenario, one will be held guilty for “culpable homicide not amounting to
murder” and murder if is otherwise.[17]

In the case of Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, an argument took place between two
people for indecent jokes aimed at the wife of the rst person. When the ghts began
between the two people along with other accused involved, the deceased went ahead to
stop and intercede in between the ghts. Due to which the accused who intended to hit the
other person, did so to the deceased and thereby caused his death.

The supreme court was deciding as to whether this amount to murder as accused by the aggrieved
parties or culpable homicide not amounting to murder? The court decided that the accused had no
enmity towards the deceased and further there was no evidence provided to prove the intention of
the accused. Thus, even if the malice is transferred to the accused, he cannot be held as a murderer of
the deceased and hence was convicted and punished under section 304 rather than section 302.[18]

In another situation where the accused aims at one person but kills the other will also
amount to culpable homicide but not murder. In the case of Kashi Ram v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, the accused aimed to shoot at one person but it hit the other person and he was
killed.

In such a situation, even though the supreme court applied the doctrine of transferred malice, they
observed that the accused never aimed to kill the deceased and hence there was no intention or
evidence for the same. This was again decided to be amounting to punishment under section 304 and
not section 302.[19]

II. Other kinds of Culpable Homicide:

There are other kinds of culpable homicide and their punishment within section 299 to 311, which are
discussed in brief as follows-

Murder

X
In section 300, it talks about “Murder” which is known as “culpable homicide coupled with act
First Year of Law School
intended to cause death or bodily injuries intended to cause death”. This involves the mental element
1 hour ago i.e., mens rea to the cause of death to any person. Its essentials and exceptions will be explained in
detail in the later part of this article.[20]
 Death caused due to Rash/Negligent Behaviour

Section 304A says “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 ne, or with both.” This section covers the death caused
by a doctor for being negligent, a motor vehicle driver due to rash driving etc.

The conviction under this section requires the proof of rash or negligent behaviour which depends
upon the circumstances of each case. It requires that there is an overt act and it is rash or negligent
whose consequences are not expected to be so evil. It is comparatively di erent to one which causes
death with no intention to do so. Thus, if there is a lack of proper care and caution then the person
can be convicted under this section.[21]

Dowry Death

The section 304B says that –

“304B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this subsection, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in
section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life]”.

This is another kind of culpable homicide and can be amounting to murder if the circumstantial
evidence support for the same and made punishable accordingly by the court of law.

Abetment to commit Culpable Homicide

Under section 299 illustration (b) which says “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 re at the bush. B res
and kills Z.

Here B may be guilty of no o ence, but A has committed the o ence of culpable homicide.” Hence, by
virtue of this illustration, the abater can be made punishable for culpable homicide and the main
o ender can be held not guilty in the absence of intention and/or knowledge when the act is done
with proper care and caution and not by negligence.[22]

Abetment to Commit Suicide

This is another form of culpable homicide, wherein the main o ender is abated by one person to
commit suicide. The Indian penal code gives us two kinds of the same i.e., under section 305 which
says –

“Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.—If any person under eighteen years of
age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of
intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with death or [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term not exceeding
ten years, and shall also be liable to ne.”
X

First Year of Law School

And under section 306 which says – “Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever
1 hour ago abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to ne.”
 Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide

Under section 308 it says that “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with ne, or with both;

..and, if the hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with ne, or with both.” So, even the
attempt of the culpable homicide is made punishable under the Indian penal code.

Exception

The law requires the “cause of death or bodily injuries likely to cause death” to be in icted upon the
bodies of living beings and does not punish them if they are caused to lifeless bodies. And further
one cannot be made guilty of culpable homicide if the same is intended to be caused to lifeless
beings.

In the case of Palani Goundan v. Emperor, the accused gave a blow to his wife, who fell
unconscious. The accused believed her to be death and hung her upon a beam using a rope to
make it seem as a case of suicide.

Due to strangulation, the wife died, which the court observed to be not an o ence of culpable
homicide. As the accused did an act which caused death intended towards a lifeless body, which at
least was believed so by the accused. This was an exception to the case of culpable homicide but the
accused was punished for trying to erase the evidence and framing false defence of suicide. [23]

Burden of Proof

The burden of proving the case, generally lies upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt.[24] But when the case is covered by the exceptions under section 300, then the burden of
proof lies upon the accused to prove that one’s case is an exception.[25]

Further, before the burden falls upon the accused, the prosecution is required to prove the
foundation facts so as to create a doubt in the minds of judges.[26]

III. Murder

The Indian penal code provides for what is murder and its exceptions in section 300, which says:

“300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the
act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the o ender knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be in icted is su cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
— 4thly.—If 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.”[27]

Murder is de ned with respect to culpable homicide. It is said to be the death of a person which is
coupled
X
with the intention of causing death to that person and must fall within any of the four
clauses above.
First Year of Law School

1 hour ago Essentials of Murder

 When can culpable homicide amount to murder is as follows-

1. When there is “intention to cause death”

2. When there is “intention to cause bodily injury, which is su cient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death”
3. When there is “knowledge that the act done is imminently dangerous that in all
probability it will cause death or bodily injuries which is likely to cause death or does that
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury”.

If the act so was done is meeting the essentials it is said to be murder.

1. Intention to Cause Death

The section 300 clause (1), says when an act or omission is coupled with the intention to cause death
or bodily injuries which are likely to cause death by the said act or omission is known to be murder.[28]
The mental element which is the intention is an important aspect here and decides whether that act
was amounting to murder or not.

The intention of the accused can be understood by understanding his deliberations and overt acts.[29]
The giving of poison[30], in icting injuries to the essential parts of the body which are required for
survival[31], the omission of warning a person about the presence of a danger which is likely to cause
death are some of the overt acts which show the intention to cause death or cause deadly injury to
that person.[32]

In the case of Vasanth v. State of Maharashtra, the accused and the deceased had enmity
towards each other. During a ght, the accused who was enraged started his vehicle and
drove in the opposite direction. It hit the deceased and killed him as the vehicle went upon
him.

The court observed that the circumstances were such that even in a deserted wide road, the accused
drove in the wrong direction and caused the death. This shows the intention of the accused to kill the
deceased.[33]

2. Intention to Cause Bodily injury with knowledge of causing death

Section 300(2) says that there must be “intention to cause bodily injury” which the accused knows to
cause death due to injury. Here, two things are required i.e., intention as well as the knowledge that
the injury is likely to cause death to the injured.[34]

Now, knowing or awareness as to the consequences of the act is very subjective in nature and varies
as each human possesses varied perspectives.[35] Hence, the court of law, for the sake of justice,
obtains an objective point of view to see what can be the consequences of the act done by the
accused and whether the same can be inferred by the overt acts of the person who is accused of said
crime.[36]

This objective test is based upon the wording of clause 3 of section 300 which requires an objective
perspective to interpret the understanding of the term “knowledge”. And further, the word “likely” in
clause 2 is interpreted to be con rmed the death of the victim and not a mere probability. Thus, the
degree of probability is set high so as to understand the term “likely to cause death”.[37]

In the case of Willie Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a quarrel took place between
accused, his brother with that of the deceased, as the accused loved the deceased’s sister
which he did not appreciate. There was a rigorous argument between them and the accused,
due to rage, took the hockey stick which the brother of the accused was holding, hit on the
head of the deceased.

Due to this, the deceased incurred a skull injury and subsequently died. The supreme court observed
that the act which was done was likely to cause death and whose knowledge was absent as the
accused did not know that his act was such that it would end a life. Hence, they ruled that it is not
murder but a case falling under section 304, IPC.[38]

3. Intention to cause bodily injury which is su cient to cause death, in the ordinary course
of nature

The clause 3 of section 300 requires that there must be “an intention to cause injury”, and “that
particular
X injury is such that in an ordinary course of nature is su cient to cause death”. Here, the
law does not require any knowledge of the accused as it is objective in nature and what it requires
First Year of Law School
mainly is an intention to cause a particular bodily injury to be proved as it depends upon the
1 hour ago
circumstantial evidence.[39]
 Further, as the section 300 as a whole depicts that the probability of death to be high so is the term
“su cient” interpreted as the extremely high probability that such injury would cause death.[40]

When the intention is established, then only the other essentials can be proved. In the case of
Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. State of Maharashtra, due to quarrel between the deceased and the
accused, there was the death of the deceased. The death was caused due to in iction of
injury with a sharp weapon in the vital parts of the deceased.

The supreme court held that in the absence of evidence that the injury was caused with the intention
of the accused, it is not murder. Hence, intention plays a vital role.[41]

4. Knowledge as to the act being imminently dangerous to life

In section 300(4), law “does not require any intention to cause injury to any particular person”. but the
only thing required is that “the person who does an act is aware or has knowledge that one’s act is so
dangerous that it has high probability to cause death or bodily injury which is highly probable to likely
to cause death with no excuse to incur such a risk”.[42]

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v Ram Prasad, it was held that husband poured
kerosene on his wife and set her ablaze due to quarrel taking place. The wife su ered serious
injuries and subsequently died.

This was observed by the supreme court to be a case of murder as the intention of the accused being
unnecessary in clause 4 of section unlike other clauses, it was only required to prove that he had
knowledge. Thus, the knowledge of the act that burning a person live is su cient to cause death or
the injuries caused thereof would lead to death was present in this case, which constituted culpable
homicide amounting to murder.[43]

Exceptions in section 300

The exceptions given in section 300 gives us an understanding as to when can culpable homicide does
not amount to murder. Every case of murder can fall under any of the ve exceptions as provided in
the section. The following are the exceptions-

Exception 1 – “Grave and Sudden Provocation”

Exception 2 – “Private Defence”
Exception 3 – “Acts of Public Servant”
Exception 4 – “Sudden Fight”
Exception 5 – “Consent”

These are the ve exceptions applicable only to section 300 i.e., murder as well as culpable homicide
and are considered as “speci c exceptions” and are di erent from general exceptions provided in
Chapter IV i.e., section 76 to 106.

The exceptions under section 300 are just to be used as mitigating factors and does not hold the
accused or convict completely non-guilty. They are applicable only when the intention or the mental
element has been proved by the prosecution and the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt
established.

1. Grave and Sudden Provocation: Under this exception, the accused may plead that his
act does not amount to murder but is due to loss of self-control as a result of which the
death occurred.[44]
2. Private Defence: This is a defence available under general defences under this code,
however, if such defence exceeds it constitutes culpable homicide but may be out of the
ambit of murder. In this, it is pleaded by the accused of causing death of a person and
has a valid reason to do so. Under private defence, death is caused to protect one’s life
and property and also to protect neighbour’s life and property. So, if the accused
exceeds the defence and causes harm more than from what is required, it amounts to a
special exception under section 300. The most important thing to notice is the good
faith of the accused.[45]
3. Act of Public Servant: This exception is allowed to a public servant who acts in good
faith and exceeds his lawful capacity. If such a public servant while discharging his
authorised duties causes the death of any person can plead this special case as an
exception.[46]
X
4. Sudden Fight: This case, where a death is caused due to a sudden ght i.e., where there
First Year of Law School is no intention or which is not premeditated, is applicable. Here, the grave and sudden
1 hour ago provocation which is mutual is necessary and no requirement of loss of control on
oneself by any person which is a necessity in exception 1.[47]
 5. Consent: In this case, it is not a case of murder if the death is consented by the
deceased or the victim who is aged above 18 years old. this exception mostly depends
upon the circumstances of the case and considers the request or consent to be valid or
not.[48]

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof when one is accused of murder is upon the prosecution, to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt.[49] Once the prosecution sets o its burden then it is shifted upon the accused to
prove that his case falls within any of the exceptions given in section 300.

The accused even then has only to prove the case on the preponderance of probabilities. If he fails to
do so he is convicted of murder otherwise he is charged with culpable homicide.[50]

IV. Di erence between Culpable Homicide and Murder

Culpable Homicide is like a genus and murder is one of its kind, i.e., species. The former is less serious
in nature when compared to the latter. The main di erence lies in the intent or the mental element.
That is, if an act is intentional and such it causes death and is intended towards a particular person
then it is murder whereas in culpable homicide it is di erent.

It requires that the death be caused due to an act of the accused irrespective of whether that person
had intention directed towards that particular person or not. Another di erence would be that the
“knowledge” is di erently interpreted in both cases.[51]

Under section 300 the probability of cause of death and its knowledge is set so high while it is
lesser in case of culpable homicide. It is obvious that if there is a high risk to human life due
to an act coupled with intention and/or knowledge then it is a case of murder, otherwise, it is
culpable homicide.[52]

[1]
K I Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (13th edn, LexisNexis 2017)

[2]
s 299-311, IPC 1860

[3]
s 299 of IPC, 1860

[4]
s 301 of IPC, 1860

[5]
s 299, Explanation 1, IPC 1860

[6]
s 299, Explanation 2, IPC 1860

[7]
s 299, Explanation 3, IPC 1860

[8]
Moti Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 900, (1964) Cr LJ 727(SC)

[9]
Rewa Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) Cr LJ 858 (MP)

[10]
Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 771

[11]
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753

[12]
Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing AIR 2001 SC 2328

[13]
Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi) (1991) 2 SCC 32

[14]
Basdev v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488

[15]
s 299, illustration (a), IPC 1860

[16]X
s 304, IPC 1860

First Year of Law School

[17]
State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao (2003) 10 SCC 434
1 hour ago
[18]
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1466
 [19]
Kashi Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 2002, (2002) 1 SCC 71

[20]
s 300, IPC 1860

[21]
s 304, IPC 1860

[22]
s 299, illustration (b), IPC 1860

[23]
Palani Goundan v. Emperor (1919) ILR 42 MAD 547

[24]
s 101, Indian Evidence Act 1872

[25]
s 105, Indian Evidence Act 1872

[26]
G L Peiris, ‘The Burden of Proof and Standards of Proof in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative
Study of English Law and A Codi ed Asian System’ (1980) 22(1) Malaya Law Review 66

[27]
s 300, IPC 1860

[28]
s 300(1), IPC 1860

[29]
Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 2574, (1972) 3 SCC 408

[30]
Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1988 SCR (3) 409

[31]
Rau Bhagwanta Hargude v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1224, (1979) Cr LJ 1022(SC)

[32]
William Wilson, ‘Murder By Omission: Some Observations on a Mismatch Between The General
and Special Parts’ (2010) 13(1) IIJ 1-22

[33]
Vasanth v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 361

[34]
s 300(2), IPC 1860

[35]
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874

[36]
R v. Govinda (1876) ILR 1 Bom 342

[37]
Arun Nivalaji More v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC 613

[38]
Willie Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116, (1956) Cr LJ 291(SC)

[39]
s 300(3), IPC 1860

[40]
Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar (1972) 3 SCC 118

[41]
Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1390

[42]
s 300(4), IPC 1860

[43]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Prasad AIR 1968 SC 881

[44]
KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605

[45]
Nathan v State of Madras AIR 1973 SC 665, (1973) Cr LJ 608(SC)

[46]
Dakhi Singh v. State AIR 1955 All 379, (1955) Cr LJ 905(All) (DB)

[47]
Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426

[48]
Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 Pat 190

[49]
s 101, Indian Evidence Act 1872

[50]
s 105, Indian Evidence Act 1872

[51]
R v Govinda (1876) ILR 1 Bom 342

[52]
Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India (11 edn., vol 3, Law Publishers 1998)

1. Kinds Of Punishments(Opens in a new browser tab)

2. Police Encounter and Public Pressure for Justice(Opens in a new browser tab)

Like 0 Tweet

Indian Penal Code ( IPC )

First Year of Law School

1 hour ago
 Author: Harika Tejavath

Related Posts

A places men with rearms at the outlet of a building, and tells Z that they will re at Z if Z
attempts to leave the building. What o ense does A commit?

A, a landlord after repeatedly demanding and not getting the rent of his house from B, the tenant,
one day locked the house in order not to allow B to enter it, till he pays-o the rent to A. Explain the
o ence, if any, committed by A in this case.

A is restrained by B from proceeding in a ‘public street’. Has B committed the o ence of ‘wrongful
restraint’? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point.

A was going in a way by driving his car, in which he had a right to go. Some workers of a political
party restrained A from proceeding in that way by car as the political party has declared a ‘bandh’ in
the town. However, A was…

← Minor and Guardianship under Muslim Law Contempt of the Lawful Authority of the Public

Servants →

10 thoughts on “Culpable Homicide and Murder: Meaning, Explanation and Di erence”

Well-written article! Reply↓

Neha
April 2, 2020

Thank you so much. Reply↓

01.
Harika Tejavath
April 2, 2020

Informative!!! Reply↓

Aritra
April 2, 2020

very well explained the di erence between both. thanks a lot Reply↓

First Year of Law School madhu mali

January 7, 2021
1 hour ago
 Thank you so much. Keep reading more informative articles from Reply↓
legal bites.

01.
Harika
April 15, 2021

I think there is error in the spelling or in the word that is used in the article. Reply↓
In the article the word that is used is “Abatement” but instead of that it
should be “Abetment”. Apart from that small error, the article is wonderful
Punisher and very informative. A very precise and well researched one.
April 14, 2021

Thank you for pointing it out. We have made the necessary Reply↓
corrections.

01.
Mayank Shekhar
April 15, 2021

Thank you for pointing it out and my apologies for the error. Keep Reply↓
reading many more articles from legal bites. You can nd best

02. articles on every legal topic here.

Harika Tejavath
April 15, 2021

Hello Sir, ThanK you so much for fetching us such an informative Article. Reply↓
Can we make notes for PCS J prepration out of these articles?

Sohail azam
June 13, 2021

Of course. You may. Reply↓

01.
Mayank Shekhar
June 13, 2021

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *
Comment

Name * Email *

Website

POST COMMENT

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

First Year of Law School

1 hour ago
 Legalbites Our Policies Contribute

About Us Disclaimer Write an Article

About the Founder Privacy Policy Write Internship Experience

Advertise with Us Terms of Service Post Event

© 2020 Legal Bites - Law And Contact Us Collaborate

Beyond .

    

First Year of Law School

1 hour ago