SVKM’S PRAVIN GANDHI COLLEGE OF LAW

RESEARCH PAPER

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

UNDER IPC

NAME: - TISHA AGRAWAL

DIVISION - A
ROLL NO. – A002
SUBJECT – LAW OF CRIMES
SUBMITTED TO – MS. GEETA KUBSAD

1
 INDEX

SR. NO. PARTICULAR

PAGE NO.
1. ABSTRACT 3

2. INTRODUCTION 3

3. RESEARCH QUESTION 3-4

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4

5. CULPABLE HOMICIDE 4-5

6. MURDER 5-6

7. CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND 6-7

MURDER

8. WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT 8-9

MURDER?

9. CONCLUSION 10

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY 10

2
ABSTRACT

All crimes include major two elements i.e. mens rea and actus rea. Absence of any one of them
while committing a crime would not constitute that act a crime. Chapter 16 of “Indian Penal
Code,1860” (hereinafter ‘IPC’) deals with the offences relating to human body, including
section 299 (Culpable Homicide) and section 300 (Murder). It also includes section of
punishment for Murder and Culpable Homicide, constituted as section 302 and 304
respectively. “The term ‘homicide’ refers to the killing of a human being, the term ‘culpable
homicide’ refers to the unlawful killing of a person and the term ‘murder’ also refers to the
killing of a person.”Culpable Homicide is considered as genus while Murder is considered as
species. The primary difference between the two is the intention by which the acts are
performed. In murder the act is performed with an intention to cause any bodily injury or death
of the other person. While in Culpable Homicide, the act is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to the other person which is likely to cause of that person. Both these concepts
are esoteric and causes great chaos. This research paper will mainly emphasis on the
comparative study between Culpable Homicide (Section 299) and Murder (Section 300) of
Indian Penal Code,1860.

INTRODUCTION

In IPC the provisions related to murder and culpable homicide tends to create confusion as they
are most complicated and technical provisions. Section 299 and 300 of Indian Penal Code
(IPC),1860 states the provisions of culpable homicide and murder respectively. If any person
commits the crime of murder and he is found guilty of murder, he would be punished under
section 302 of IPC which mentions the punishment for murder. And if the person committing
the murder falls within the ambit of any exception to section 300, he would be held liable for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder and would be punished under section 304 which
provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Murder and culpable
homicide both are cognizable and non-bailable offence. The primary difference between
murder and culpable homicide is that in murder the intention is to cause enough bodily injury
which would kill a person. In the case of a culpable homicide, the act is done with the intention
to cause physical harm which would likely result in death of a person. Similar ingredients in
both the offences are mens rea and actus reus, where the person is said to have harmed someone
through certain act.

RESEARCH QUESTION

1. Whether the provisions of Culpable Homicide (Section 299) and Murder (Section 300) are
same under of Indian Penal Code,1860?

2. What are the conditions under which Culpable Homicide would not be considered as
Murder?

3
3. What is the role of judiciary with respect to the provisions of Culpable Homicide (Section
299) and Murder (Section 300) under of Indian Penal Code,1860?

METHODOLOGY

‘The present research is, descriptive and conclusive. The study was conducted on secondary
source of data books, articles, journals, e-sources, theories, and the relevant provision with
decided case laws.’ This research paper emphasis to focus on the facts, circumstances and
practical scenarios on the provisions of section 299 and section 300 of Indian Penal Code,1860.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE

“Section 299: 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.”

Explanation 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.”

Explanation 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.”

Explanation 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.”

Culpable Homicide is classified in two parts:

a) Culpable Homicide amounting to murder: The act that fulfils the conditions of section
299 and part 1 of section 300 of IPC.

b) Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder: The act that fulfils the conditions of
section 299, but either does not fulfil the condition given in section 300 or exceptions
of section 300 of IPC.

Culpable Homicide indicates doing an unlawful act with the intention of causing death, or
bodily injury which may sooner or later cause death, or doing an act with the knowledge that

4
the act would lead to causing death of that person. ‘If a person is causing some injury to another
one who is already suffering from some disease or some bodily infirmity and that injury
accelerates the death of that person the person responsible for causing injury is liable for
punishment for causing Culpable Homicide.’

If the offender has no intention to kill a person or has no knowledge that his act would result
in causing death of a person, he would be liable for an offence of lesser degree than culpable
homicide, but not murder. A killing done without any aim or in the then of sudden provocation,
the person will not be held liable for culpable homicide under section 299 of IPC.

Essentials of Culpable Homicide: -

1. ‘Death of a person must have occurred, here person means a human being

2. It must be an act of another person which has caused the death

3. The act causing death should have been done with’

• ‘The intention of causing death or

• with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
• or with the intention that such act is likely to cause death.’

Case law: - Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

“According to the evidence collected, the defendant held a gun on the roof of the house, but
unfortunately the bullet was deflected and injury occurred. 5 people were injured, out of whom
two were shot dead. The defendant pleaded not guilty because he did not intend to kill anyone.
The Supreme Court held him guilty giving the reason that the defendant carried a gun loaded
in public and did not take good care of his surroundings. He must have the idea that a bullet
could distract and hurt someone. He is liable for Culpable Homicide under section 299 of IPC.”

MURDER

Section 300

“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—

(Secondly)— If it is done 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—

(Thirdly)— 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, or—

(Fourthly)— 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.”

5
Murder is when one person is killed with a malice intention of another person. It is said to be
more serious offence as compared to culpable homicide. The offence of murder will not be
constituted unless it falls under the definition of culpable homicide.

Case Law: ‘B.N. Srikantiah v. Mysore State’: ‘In this case there were more than 24 injuries
on the victim with 21 wounds incised on vital parts of the body—head, neck, and shoulder. The
‘intention of causing bodily injury’ was established, bringing it in the ambit of S. 300. It was
held to be a case of murder.’

Essentials of Murder: -

Firstly, the act should have an intention of causing death to a person- This is said culpable
homicide which amounts to murder. The person doing the act should be in a sound state and
should have clear intentions to kill a person.

Secondly, the lawbreaker has the understanding that the intention cause physical harm can
result in the death of the person under section 300 of IPC. ‘The intention to cause any bodily
injury with the knowledge that such injury will cause death to the person, this will amount to
Culpable homicide which would amount to Murder. If the offender understands his action
would cause the death of the other person, then here the knowledge will not be the probability.
This would be culpable homicide amounting to murder.

“In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten for several
times by the offender even after the victim falling senseless. In this case, the court held that the
murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the
death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder.”

Thirdly, if the act done by the perpetrator is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury
which is the enough cause to result in death of that person, the subjective factor ends with the
fact that the killer has the full knowledge that his usual action would kill or harm the person
resulting in death.

“In case of Visra Singh vs State of Punjab,1958, the Supreme Court found that if the criminal
could not prove that the act was done accidently or unintentionally, he would commit fatal
crime. It was presumed that he intended to be a victim of injury.”

CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

‘To understand the difference between them, we need to understand the very thin line, it is the
intention behind the act.’ As intention is the most complex difference between the two sections,
the degree of intention is taken into consideration. It is commonly noted that all murders are
culpable homicide but not all culpable homicides are murder. Culpable homicide is genus
whereas murder is species. If the bodily injury to a person is intended to likely cause death of
that person, it would fall under Culpable Homicide. But, if such injury sufficient in ordinary
course of action to cause death, it would fall under Murder. To define an act under the

6
provisions of Culpable Homicide, it is necessary to determine that the act of accused ‘caused’
the victim’s death. In this regard the apex court has held that:

“Once when a crime has occurred and to find whether it is a murder or culpable homicide, there
are certain points to be observed. Firstly, one who investigates the crime should establish the
act done is murder. Then he should find whether the crime fulfils the ingredients of Section
300 of IPC are satisfied. Next the work is to find whether that crime is Culpable homicide
which not amounts to murder or some other like crimes which attracts the exceptions to murder
that is, private defence. At last, after finding these things, the crime would fit into a certain hole
as said in the Pigeon hole theory and thus the punishment for that crime would bound and the
offender would be punished according to the crime done by him.”

IPC identifies three degrees of Culpable Homicide to determine the punishment proportionate
to graveness of the offence. The 1st degree is mediated as the most serious and heinous form of
Culpable Homicide which is defined as ‘Murder’ under section 300 in IPC. 2nd degree of
Culpable Homicide is punishable under first part of section 304 of IPC. 3rd degree of Culpable
Homicide is punishable under part 2 of section 304 and considered as the lowest degree among
the three.

Case law: “Vasanth v. State of Maharashtra (1983)”

“There existed prior animosity between the accused and the deceased in Vasanth v. State of
Maharashtra (1983). The accused and the dead were observed fighting. The accused rushed to
his vehicle, drove it on the wrong side of the road and straight into the deceased, knocking him
down and driving over him, killing him. The route on which the accident occurred was broad
and lonely. The accused had no cause or requirement to drive the jeep in the incorrect way. The
Supreme Court ruled that the accused intentionally slammed his jeep into the deceased and ran
him over with the purpose to kill him. It is worth noting that the first clause of Section 300,
‘act done with the purpose to cause death,’ is the same as the first clause of Section 299, which
is likewise ‘performing an act with the intent to cause death.’ As a result, an act that falls under
clause (1) of Section 300 will also fall under Section 299, and it will constitute culpable
homicide amounting to murder in both cases.”

Case Law: “State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh (2003)”

“In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh (2003), the Supreme Court found the accused
guilty of murder for inflicting an incised cut with a sword on the deceased’s neck, resulting in
excessive bleeding and organ failure, on the grounds that he knew the bodily injury he caused
would likely result in death.”

7
WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER?

There are certain exceptions to the offence committed under section 300 of IPC. This exception
reduces the charge of Murder to Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder.

1. Grave and Sudden Provocation

When a person loses his self-control and by the sudden and grave provocation, he
causes death of another person who gave the provocation or the death is caused by
mistake or accident.

Case Law: K.M. Nanavati Hospital v. State of Maharashtra

The court laid down that the gestures and words were like that they gave grave and
sudden provocation. To determine the intensity of grave and sudden provocation, a test
was established as ‘Reasonable Man’s Test’ where is checked that whether any
reasonable man having same capacity and class of society as that of accused, would be
so provoked as accused or not. The mental background of the previous act also needs
to be taken into consideration for sudden and grave provocation.
Further there are some provisions to exception 1 under which the criminal will be held liable
for Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder.

a) “The provocation must not cause intentionally from the act of the offender as an excuse
to kill such person or any other person.”
b) “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.”
c) “The offender must not have been provoked by the act of the person who is exercising
his right to private self-defence.”

2. Exceeding Right of Private Defence

“When the person has a good faith while exercising his right of private defence of
property or person exceeds the power that is given to him and thus causing the death of
the person against whom he is exercising his right without any knowledge or intention
of doing anything more which is necessary for such purpose.”

Case Law: Ranbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2018)

“The Court held that the burden of proving self-defence is on the accused. Such burden
can be reduced by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying
the basis for that plea in the cross-examination of the prosecution witness or by
adducing the defence evidence.”

8
 3. Act of Public Servants

When the act is done by any public servant or any person authorised by public servant
for the advancement of justice and thus exceeds their power causing a death of a person
without malice intention believing it to be lawful ad necessary for the desire of his duty.

Case Law: Dakhi Singh v. State (1955)

In this case the police officer while exercising his duty, fire another person in the place
of a thief who was trying to run away. Here the court held that the police officer
discharged his duty without any malice intention and was benefited under this
exception.

4. Death Caused in Sudden Fight

When the fight takes place suddenly or premeditatedly without any intention if the
either party to cause death of any person, it comes under the ambit of this exception.
“It is not an important fact that which party has first assaulted or who have offered a
provocation.”

Case Law: Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. State of U.P (2018)

“In this case the appellant got infuriated when he was told that his calf had come to the
place of the deceased and started abusing the deceased. when he was being stopped
from being abuses then he fired at the deceased. At the time of the fight, the accused
had a weapon but the deceased was unarmed. This indicated that the appellant had an
intention to kill the deceased. The case was held liable for the murder.”

5. Consent

The offender will not be held liable for murder if the other person gives his/her consent
for death. The person giving consent must be above the age of 18 years and the consent
given should be voluntary and free.

Case Law: “Dashrath Paswan v. State of Bihar” (2012)

“Here the accused was a student of class 10. He failed in his exam. He decided to end
his life and infirmed this to his wife who is aged 19 years. His wife asked him to kill
herself first and then to himself. The accused killed his wife but before he could kill
himself, he was arrested. He pleaded under exception 5 and court held that deceased
gave her consent without any misconception. Thus, the accused was entitled to take the
benefit of this exception.”

9
CONCLUSION

Murder and Culpable Homicide seems to be very similar offence, but there exists a very thin
line in between both the concepts. The aspect of degree of probability of death and seriousness
of the crime differs it from the similarities. Murder is an aggravated form of Culpable
Homicide. “The courts have time and again taken efforts to differentiate between the two
offences the result of the two being same, intention behind the offence being the important
factor of consideration. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for a fair and just legal
system.” The side of the defence can destruct the entire case of the prosecution by proving that
no intention existed at the time of committing the offence. Everything falls to ‘Mens Rea’ or
‘guilty intention’ of a person. When the offence is done intentionally to kill someone, it is
considered as murder, but if there is no intention of the offender to kill a person or did not know
they were going to kill someone, it is considered as Culpable Homicide.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/07/31/revisiting-exception-5-to-section-
300/
2. https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Murder-vs-Culpable-Homicide-Understanding-
the-Key-Differences
3. Indian Penal Code, 7th Edition, by Bhattacharya, Prof. T, Central Law Agency,
Allahabad, 2013
4. Bare Act, Indian Penal Code – 1860 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860
5. Criminal Law- Cases and Materials, by K. D. Gaur 10th Edition (2022

10