Murder and culpable homicide; along with section 304 parts and section 302.

Culpable Homicide Section 299

Essentials:

1. Intention of causing death

2. Intention of causing bodily injury that is likely to cause death

3. Knowledge that act is likely to cause death

Explanation 1: accelerating death of someone who has disorder, disease etc.

Explanation 2: if after bodily injury death could have been prevented by proper remedies, the
person still is deemed to have caused death

Explanation 3: causing of death child inside mother womb not equals homicide. If the child is out
of womb even if a finger is out it amounts to culpable homicide.

Let’s say there are three people involved, X, Y, and Z. X knows that Z is hiding behind a bush,
but Y is unaware of it. X, with the intention of causing Z’s death or knowing that Z’s death is
likely, persuades Y to shoot at the bush. Y, following X’s instructions, fires and unfortunately
kills Z. In this situation, Y may not be held guilty of any offence, but X is liable for the offence
of culpable Homicide in IPC.
Rampal Singh v State of UP (2012)
Culpable homicide is genus and murder is species. All murder is culpable homicide, but all
culpable homicide is not murder.
Ingredients of culpable homicide amounting to murder
 The intention of causing bodily injury to the person, and the offender knows that such
injury is likely to cause the person’s death.
 The bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to
cause death.
 Knowledge that is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death
 Commits act without any excuse.
R v. Govinda, 1876
Govinda allegedly kicking and striking his 15-year-old wife, resulting in her falling to the ground.
It was alleged that he then placed his knee on her chest and struck her multiple times in the face,
causing serious injuries, including a blow to her left eye that led to brain bleeding and her
subsequent death. . Ultimately, it was found that there was no intention to cause death or the bodily
injury was not likely to cause death ordinarily. The court convicted Govinda of culpable homicide,
sentencing him to imprisonment for seven years.

Laid Diff btw CH amounting and not amounting to murder.

- Aggravated form of culpable homicide

- Higher degree of mens rea

The difference between the two is based on intent to cause death and aggravating
circumstances.
Intent
 Culpable homicide: There is less intent to kill the person.
 Murder: There is more intent to kill the person.
Aggravating circumstances
 Culpable homicide: The bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death.
 Murder: The injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

MURDER – 300
In Re Thavamani case

The facts of this case can be divided into two stages. In the first stage, the accused had the intention
to cause death and hit the victim, believing she had died. However, she was merely unconscious.
In the second stage, they threw her into a well to conceal evidence, and she died there. The court
held the accused liable for murder, stating that the second stage was a continuation of the first
stage. From the beginning, the accused had an intention to cause the victim’s death, making them
responsible for the murder.
Culpable homicide not murder
(5 exception)
1. Grave and sudden provocation

 A gives a sudden and grave provocation to B by insulting and abusing his father. A loses
his self-control and fires a pistol at B. Therefore, B died immediately. A is liable for the
culpable homicide not amounting to murder
 If the person has an intention to kill such a person then it will not fall under the
exceptions. Example: - A being provoked by B kill B’s daughter intentionally. A will be
liable for the murder as neither the death of the daughter was not caused by misfortune or
accident nor A was provoked by B’ daughter.
 K.M Nanavati vs the State of Maharashtra 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567 (Rustom movie)

- Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem
Ahuja, his wife's lover
- Test of grave and sudden provocation established to find whether any other reasonable man
having the same capacity and belonging to the same class or sections of society if placed
in the same situations as accused would also be provoked as to lose his/her self-control.
- During the proceedings of this case, the Supreme Court of India extensively discussed the
law related to provocation in India. It observed that

o “(i) The test of "grave and sudden" provocation is whether a reasonable man,
belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in
which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.

o (ii) 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 s. 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

o (iii) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken
into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and
sudden provocation for committing the offence.

o (iv) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from
that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or
otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.”
  exceptions of Exception 1

o No voluntary provocation
o The provocation is not caused by anything which is done in accordance with the
law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of any public
servant. Example: A is lawfully arrested by C, a constable. A was provoked
because he was arrested so he kills C. Here A will be liable for murder as C was
exercising his public duty.
o The offender must not have been provoked by the act of the person who is
exercising his right to private self-defense

 Grave and sudden provocation is question of fact

 In the case of Muthu vs State of Tamil Nadu on 27 September 2016, the Court held that
continuous harassment would lead to the deprivation of the power of self-control. This will
fall under this exception.

2. Exceeds power of private defense

If the accused exceeds his right of private defense intentionally then he will be liable for murder
but if it is unintentionally then he will be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In the case of Bhanwar Singh and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May 2008

The court held that in order to take the benefit of this exception it is necessary to prove that
the accused had the right of self-defense against the accused and this right extends to
causing the death of the person. If this is proved then it would result in the application of
Section 300 Exception 2. The court may reject the plea on the ground that the right to
private defense exists but more harm was caused than was necessary or the right of private
defence do not exceed causing the death of a person.

3. Exceeds power given to him by law

Dukhi Singh vs State, 1955 CriLJ 905

Facts: The appellant, a constable of Railway Protection Force( RFF) while discharging his duty
shoots a fireman unintentionally. He fired a shot to catch the thief who was trying to run.

Judgement: the court held that the constable is entitled to the benefit of this section.
4. Sudden fight in heat of passion
The case falls under this section only when the death is caused by:-

 In the sudden fight.

 In the heat of passion without any pre-planned arising from a sudden quarrel.
 The offenders taking no unfair advantage.
 The offenders not acting in an unusual or cruel manner.
 The fight must be between the accused and the person who is killed.

In the case of Surain Singh vs State of Punjab on 10 April 2017

The Supreme Court stated the difference between two exceptions of murder . i.e. Exception
1 and Exception 4.

Both the exception based on the same principle but there is an absence of premeditation in
both the cases.

In the case of Exception 1, there is total deprivation of self-control, while in the case of
Exception 4 there is only a heat of passion which clouds men’s sober reason and encourages
them to do which they would not do otherwise. There is a provocation in both the exception
but in Exception 4 the injury caused is not the direct result of that provocation.

5. Risks death with his own consent

Essential requirements

 The age of the person whose death is caused is above the age of 18 years.
 Consent is given by the deceased.
 Consent needs to be free i.e. it must be voluntary.

Anil, aged 16 years was abetted by A to commit suicide. Here, Anil was incapable to give his
consent because he was immature and was below 18 years of age. A is liable for Murder.
302 - Punishment for murder

Cognizable, non bailable, non- compoundable, DEATH PENALTY/ imprisonment for life

In Bachan Singh v. the State of Punjab (1980) which restricts the vast discretion of the court in
forcing capital punishment or death penalty. Death as the highest punishment was taken out from
being a general rule to being granted only in exceptional situations, and that too after the recording
of the special reason for such death penalty which cannot be reverted under any situation after its
execution.

304 – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

1. with intention of causing death: imprisonmeny of life/ 10 yrs + fine

2. Has knowledge but no inention: 10 yrs, fine or both

304 A – Death by negligence

 negligence and
 The absence of an intention to cause death.
Essential:
 Death of a Person
 Negligence or Rashness
 Absence of Intention to Cause Death
 Causation
Suppose two friends A and B were sitting in the room. Friend A tells B that he has bought
a new revolver and B requests to show the same. In the course of showing the revolver to
B, a bullet gets fired which leads to the death of B. In the present condition, B cannot be
held liable under culpable Homicide or Murder as there is neither knowledge nor intention
but B can be held liable under Section 304A.
In Juggankhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court held a medical practitioner
accused under 304A for discharging a poisonous drug into the body of a patient suffering
from guinea warm without even knowing the effect of same. The act of the accused was
considered a ‘negligent act’.
‘Rash Act’ can be understood clearly by the case Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar. In
this case, a neighbor started using the washroom of the accused. The accused objected, but
despite she carried on using his washroom. One day, the accused placed a naked wire
carrying electricity at the entrance of the washroom, and the lady touched the wire and
died. Here, the accused was held liable for a ‘rash act’.
304 B – Dowry death
1. Death of a woman within seven years of her marriage
2. Death caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
death caused by cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives in connection with
any dowry demand
3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been meted out to the woman shortly before her
death.
Kamesh Panjiyar & Kamlesh v. State of Bihar (2005)
In this case, the Supreme Court stated the key ingredients of dowry death (Section 304B, IPC) as
follows:

1. A woman’s death should be caused by burns, physical harm, or some other unusual
event.
2. She should have died within the first seven years of her marriage.
3. Her husband or a relative of her husband must have treated her cruelly or harassed
her.
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be in response to or in conjunction with a dowry
demand.
5. It must be proven that the woman was subjected to such brutality or harassment
shortly before her death.

Facts of the case

In this case, the appellant and the deceased, Jaikali Devi, married in 1988. A dowry of Rs 40000
was paid at the time of the wedding. The groom’s side desired a she-buffalo for her second
Bidai. The requirement was not met. The dead had previously expressed her dissatisfaction with
her spouse and other members of his family’s mistreatment and torture.

Sudhir Kumar Mahto, her brother, heard various rumours in the area about the deceased’s
murder on November 28, 1989. (her sister). He then travelled to the appellant’s village with his
father, brother, and uncle. Her sister’s (dead) body was on the verandah, and there was blood
gushing out of her lips. There were also a few markings on her neck indicating violence.

During the Sessions Court hearing, it was noted that this was not a case of natural death. Her
spouse was sentenced to 10 years in jail after the Court found him guilty under Section 304B of
the Indian Penal Code.