Culpable homicide

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide.
There lies a slight difference of knowledge and intention between culpable
homicide under section 300 and section 299, but that difference holds a
significant position for it allows the judiciary to give fair and just judgments.

Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder (Section 299 IPC)

It can be simply referred to as culpable homicide, this comes under the
purview of Section 299 of The Indian Penal Code 1862 which states that:
An act done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury
which is likely to cause death or having the knowledge that he can likely by his
act cause death, he’ll be committing the offense of culpable homicide.
Conditions
After bifurcating the definition, we get 3 conditions which have to be fulfilled to
attract Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code these are-
1. The intention of causing death.
2. The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
3. With the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death.

Illustrations
Section 299 IPC (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder)
• A, dig a deep pit and cover it with grass and clay, with the intention of
causing death or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused. B
thinking it as a hard ground tries to stand on it and dies. A is liable of Culpable
Homicide not amounting to Murder.
• A paid a truck driver to slam his truck on the car of C, he did it with the
intention of causing death or with the knowledge that death is likely to be
caused. C went to the market to buy groceries. The truck crashes with his car,
C dies. A is liable of Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder.
A not knowing that D has a tumour in his brain, hits him hard on the head with
a cricket bat, with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that
death is likely to be caused. D dies because of the bursting of the tumour. A is
liable of Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder.
Cases:
 In the case of Reg. v. Govinda, 1876 the accused had knocked down
his wife, kept a knee on her chest and gave two to three violent blows
with the closed fist on her face. This act produced extraversion of blood
on her brain and afterwards, the wife died due to this. The act was not
committed with the intention of causing death and the bodily injury was
not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The
accused was liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

 In the case of Jalluddin 1982 CR. L.J An Ojha (tantric) had beaten a girl
to remove her off the ill effects of ghosts, however, she died here the
Ojha was guilty of culpable homicide.

 In the case of Kusa Majhi v/s State of Orissa 1985 Cr.LJ 1460 the
deceased warned her son for not going fishing with others. The son got
angry, brought an axe and gave blows on her shoulder after which she
died. The blows were in fit of moment and anger and was no pre plan of
the offence. Therefore, it was held to be a case of culpable homicide as
the blows were likely to cause bodily injury which then caused death

COMMON INTENTION
A common intention is defined as a predetermined plan acting in concert in
accordance with the plan. It must be proven that the criminal act was
committed in coordination with a pre-planned scheme. It exists prior to the
commission of the act in time, but it does not have to be a large gap.
Sometimes common intentions can be created on the spot if the gap is not too
long. The primary aspect is a pre-planned strategy to carry out the plan for the
intended result. Each of such individuals shall be held accountable for an act
performed in pursuit of a shared intention as if the conduct were performed by
a single individual. Common intention does not imply that numerous people
have the same intention. To establish a common intention, each of them must
be aware of and embrace the objective of the others.
For example, four people intend to beat ‘A’ along the river. And as soon as
they arrived at the location to defeat ‘A’, they encountered ‘B’, A’s adversary.
After learning their strategy, B joins forces with those four individuals in order
to defeat ‘A’. ‘B’ had decided to join them on the spot, as he also had the
same intention (i.e. to beat A), which qualified everyone to come under the
ambit of ‘common intention’.
Section 34 IPC
Section 34 of the IPC 1860 stipulates that when multiple people commit
criminal conduct in pursuit of a common intention, each of them is accountable
for the act in the same way as if it were committed by him alone.

Principle
Section 34 makes no mention of any specific offence. It establishes the rule of
evidence that if two or more people commit a crime for the same purpose,
they will be found jointly accountable.

Essentials constituting Section 34 IPC

A criminal act committed by multiple people
The shared intent of all individuals to perform the unlawful act
All people engaged in the commission of the act (in furtherance of that shared
intention)