CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER IN INDIA

Culpable Homicide

The word homicide is derived from two Latin words - homo and cido. Homo means human and cido
means killing by a human. Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being. A
homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes situations where a person who has
caused the death of another cannot be blamed for his death.

For example, in exercising the right of private defence or in other situations explained in Chapter IV
of Indian Penal Code covering General Exceptions. Unlawful homicide means where the killing of
another human is not approved or justified by law. Culpable Homicide is in this category. Culpable
means blame worthy. Thus, Culpable Homicide means killing of a human being by another human
being in a blameworthy or criminal manner.

Culpable Homicide is defined in Section 299 of the IPC which says that whoever causes death by
doing an act with the intention of causing death or , with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death , or with the knowledge , that he is likely by such act to cause
death , commits the offence of culpable homicide. i

Following are the essential Ingredients of Culpable homicide -

1. Causing of death of a human being

2. Such death must have been caused by doing an act;
3. The act must have been done :
i) With the intention of causing death
ii) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death ; or
iii) With the knowledge that the doer is likely , by such act , to cause death.

1. Causing death – Death means death of human being . it does not include the death of an
unborn child , such as child in mother’s womb. It may amount to culpable homicide to cause
death of a living child if any part of the child Has been brought forth , though the child may
not have breathed or been completely born. The offence of culpable homicide is complete
as soon as any person is killed by the accused .
2. Acts -The Act should be of such a nature that it would put to peril someone's life or damage
someone's life to such an extent that the person would die. In most cases the act would
involve a high degree of violence against the person. Instances such stabbing a person in
vital organs, shooting someone at point blank range, administering poison .However this is
not always the rule and there are exceptions to this rule. Remember the section says "causes
death by doing an act", so given the special circumstances certain acts which may not
involve extreme degree of violence, but may be sufficient to cause someone's death.
For example, starving someone may not require violence in the normal usage of the term,
but may cause a person's death. The Section also covers administration of bodily injury
which is "likely" to cause death.
 By doing an act:

Death may be caused in a number of ways; such as

 by poisoning, starving, striking, drowning or

 communicating some shocking news and by a hundred different ways.
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER IN INDIA

 Intention

To prove intention in acts where there is bodily injury is "likely to cause death", the act has to be of
two types. Firstly where bodily injury itself is done in a fashion which cause death.

For example bludgeoning someone on the head repeatedly with a blunt instrument. Secondly in
situations where there are injuries and there are intervening events between the injuries and the
death provided the delay is not so blatant, one needs to prove that injuries were administered with
the intention of causing death.

 Knowledge

Knowledge is different from intention to the extent that where a person may not have the intention
to commit an act which kills, he knows that the act which he commits will take someone's life or is
likely to take someone's life will be considered having the "knowledge that he is likely by such act to
cause death". For example, a doctor uses an infected syringe knowingly on a patient thereby
infecting him with a terminal disease. The act by itself will not cause death, but the doctor has
knowledge that his actions will lead to someone's death.

CASE LAW -:

It was held in the case of Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997) that Section 299 of the Indian
Penal Code is the genus and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is the species. Hence, there are no
independent sections regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder it is the part of Section
300 of IPC which defines Murder.

Herein, the court observed that:

“For deciding the proper punishment which is proportionate to the current offense, IPC has divided
culpable homicide into three degrees. First is the gravest form which is Murder it is defined under
section 300 of IPC, the second is the culpable homicide of the second degree which is punishable
under Section 304 part 1 of IPC and Third is the lowest degree of culpable homicide which is
punishable under Section 304 part 2 of IPC.”

Section 304 in the Indian penal code :

Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – 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 10 years , and shall also be liable to fine , if the act by
which death is caused is done with intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause cause death ;

Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 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 ii.

Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder

MURDER – Except in the cases hereinafter excepted , culpable homicide is murder , if the act by
which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death , or –
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER IN INDIA

2ndly – if it is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of a person to whom harm is caused , or –

3rdly – if it is done with 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 , 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 excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. iii

Section 300 deals with Culpable Homicide amounting to murder. In other words the Section states
that culpable homicide is murder in certain situations. This makes us come to two conclusions,
namely:

 For an act to be classified as murder it must first meet all the conditions of culpable
homicide.
 Secondly, all acts of murder are culpable homicide, but all acts of culpable homicides are not
murder

i. When an act is done with the intention of causing death

The degree of intention required is very high for murder. There must be intention present and the
intention must be to cause the death of the person, not only harm or grievous hurt without the
intention to cause death.

Instances would include:

• Shooting someone at point blank range.

• Stabbing someone in the hurt

• Hanging someone by the neck till he dies

• Strapping a bomb on someone

• Administering poison to someone.

ii. Inflicting of bodily injury which the offender knows is likely to cause death

The second situation covers instances where the offender has special knowledge about the victim's
condition and causes harm in such a manner which causes death of the person.

Instances would include:

• Lolo is suffering from jaundice. Bebo knows this and slips in alcohol in Lolo's medicine in order to
rupture Lolo's liver so Lolo dies. Lolo dies as a result of consuming the adulterated medicine.

iii. Bodily injury which causes death in the ordinary course of nature

These situations cover such acts where there is bodily injury which in ordinary sequence of events
leads to the death of the person. Read the part of the section carefully.

The section actually has two conditions

 Firstly, the bodily injury inflicted is inflicted with the intention of causing death of the person
on whom it is inflicted.
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER IN INDIA

 Secondly, the bodily injury caused in the ordinary course of events leads to death of
someone.

An instance of the same would be:

• Musharraf wants Sharif dead. In order to kill Musharraf picks up a hockey stick and repeatedly hits
him on the head. Sharif dies as a result of the injury.

iv. Commission of an imminently dangerous act without any legitimate reason which would

cause death or bodily injury which would cause death.

This head covers the commission of those acts which are so imminently dangerous which when
committed would cause death or bodily injury which would result in death of a person and that such
an act is done without any lawful excuse. Cases under this head have three requirements _

 Commission of an inherently dangerous act

 the knowledge that the act in all probability will cause death or bodily injury which will
cause death and
 the act is done without any excuse (the excuse must be lawful or legitimate excuse)

Instances would include:

• Throwing a high intensity bomb in a crowded public place.

• Thrown loaded cast iron boxes from a multi storied building in a busy thoroughfare.

Section 302 of IPC – punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death , imprisonment for life , and shall also be
liable to fine.iv

Death penalty under Section 302

However, death penalty can only be given in rarest of the rare case this was held in the case of
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab wherein it was observed that when the court can avail the recourse
of life imprisonment then why the court has to go for such an inhumane punishment like death
penalty. The Indian Judiciary has defined certain conditions in which death penalty could be used as
a recourse these were laid down in the Machhi Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab which are as
follows:

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

reprehensible manner which awakens intense and extreme indignation of the community.
For instance, setting someone’s house on fire with the intention to burn them alive;
 The magnitude of the crime is at a large scale which means causing multiple deaths;
 When death is caused because of the caste and creed of the person;
 When the motives of the accused were cruelty or total depravity; and
 When the murder victim is an innocent child, a helpless woman or person (due to old age or
infirmity), a public figure, etc.v

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. Though dealt with in detail in the following
section, the basic difference between culpable homicide and murder is the level of intention
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER IN INDIA

involved. Where there is a very high level of intention involved the act usually falls under murder. In
addition to this general understanding (that acts when not murder are culpable homicide) the IPC
itself lists certain cases when death is caused to be read as culpable homicide not amounting to
murder covers five specific situations:

i. Acts under grave and sudden provocation

When a person looses self control on account of certain situation and causes the death of some
person. The provocation must be grave, it must be sudden, i.e. 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.

An example of this situation will be:

A has an affair with S. A's husband returns home to find A in a compromising position with S. Seeing
his wife in such a position and without further thinking he reaches out for a knife and kills S. S will
have committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

ii. When Private Defence is exceeded in good faith

In exercising private defence either with respect to property or person, if a 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

iii. 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.

Example:

Inspector Chulbul was given instructions to capture Gabbar but not shoot him. When the transport
convoy broke down and Gabbar moved from his seat Chulbul thought he is going to escape and shot
him. At best Chulbul would have committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

iv. When death is caused in sudden fight or heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel

Similar to the first situation, when at times fight gets out of hand and a person hits someone or
injures a person in such a fashion that may cause death of a person.

v. 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.

An example of this illustration would be:

Bhola instigates Bobby to commit suicide. Bobby after independently considering the suggestion and
without any pressure from Bhola commits suicide. If Bhola was an adult , then Bhola would be guilty
for assisting in culpable homicide.
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER IN INDIA

The Noida double murder case virefers to the unsolved murders of 13-year-old girl Aarushi Talwar
and 45-year-old Hemraj Banjade, a male live-in domestic worker employed by her family. The two
were killed on the night of 15–16 May 2008 at Aarushi's home in Noida, India. The case aroused
public interest as a whodunit story, and received heavy media coverage. The sensational media
coverage, which included salacious allegations against Aarushi and the suspects, was criticized by
many as a trial by media.

When Aarushi's body was discovered on 16 May, Hemraj, who was missing at the time, was
considered the main suspect. The next day, Hemraj's partially decomposed body was discovered on
the terrace. The police were heavily criticized for failing to secure the crime scene immediately. After
ruling out former domestic servants of the family, the police treated Aarushi's parents—Dr. Rajesh
Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar—as the prime suspects. The police suspected that Rajesh had
murdered the two after finding them in an "objectionable" position, or because Rajesh's alleged
extra-marital affair had led to his blackmail by Hemraj and a confrontation with Aarushi. The
accusations enraged the Talwars' family and friends, who accused the police of framing the Talwars
in order to cover up the botched-up investigation. The case was then transferred to the CBI, which
exonerated the parents and suspected the Talwars' assistant Krishna Thadarai and two domestic
servants—Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal. Based on the 'narco' interrogation conducted on the three
men, the CBI assumed that they had killed Aarushi after an attempted sexual assault, and Hemraj for
being a witness. The CBI was accused of using dubious methods to extract a confession, and all the
three men were released after it could not find any solid evidence against them.

In 2009, the CBI handed over the investigation to a new team, which recommended closing the case
due to critical gaps in the evidence. Based on circumstantial evidence, it named Rajesh Talwar as the
sole suspect, but refused to charge him due to the lack of any hard evidence. The parents opposed
the closure report, calling CBI's suspicion of Rajesh Talwar as baseless. Subsequently, a special CBI
court rejected the CBI's claim that there was not enough evidence, and ordered proceedings against
the Talwars. In November 2013, the parents were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but
many critics argued that the judgment was based on weak evidence. The Talwars challenged the
decision in the Allahabad High Court.

On 12 October 2017, the court acquitted them, calling the evidence against them unsatisfactory and
severely criticizing the police, CBI and the media for not having investigated the murder properly. On
8 March 2018, the CBI challenged the acquittal in the Supreme Court. The case remains unsolved.
i
Section 299 culpable homicide of IPC (bare act)

ii
Section 304 punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder IPC
iii
Section 300 murder of IPC ( bare act)
iv
Section 302 of IPC punishment for murder
v
Culpable homicide under Indian penal code(blog.ipleaders.in)
vi
Arushi hemraj murder case ( Wikipedia.org)