Culpable homicide & murder

CULPABLE HOMICIDE & MURDER
10-11-2015RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035 1

1..CULPABLE
HOMICIDE……..
• DEFINATION IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860…
• RELATED ILLUSTRATION…
• EXPLANATION……
• INGREDIENTS OF CALPABLE HOMICIDE
2..
MURDER
………
• DEFINATION IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860…
• RELATED ILLUSTRATION…..
• Exception….
Contents….

3..DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN MURDER &
CULPABLE HOMICIDE…
4.. PUNISHMENT…..
5.. REFRENCE…..

SECTION-299: CULPABLE HOMICIDE (THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860)..
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as a likely to cause death, or
with the knowledge , that he is likely by such act to
cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.
1. CULPABLE HOMICIDE
10-11-2015
RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035
4

(a)..A lays sticks and turn over the pit, with the intention of thereby causing
death, or with the knowledge, that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z,
believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has
committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b)..A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not known it. A, intending to
cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death induce B to fire at the bush .
B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed
the offence of culpable homicide.
(c)..A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and still it , kills B, who is behind
a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an
unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to
kill B, or cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

(1)..A person who caused bodily injury to another who is
labouring under a disorder, diseases or bodily infirmity and
thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed
to have caused his death.
(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.
(3)..The causing of the death of a 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 may
not have breathed or been completely born. 10-11-2015RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035 6

HOMICIDE…
 Homicide comes from the Latin word ‘homo’ (man) and
‘cidi’(I cut).
 Homicide is the killing of a human being by a human
being. It may either lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide
includes several cases falling under Chapter IV of the
Indian Penal Code dealing with General Exceptions (sec.
76 to 106 Of I.P.C.). Unlawful homicide is of the following
kinds..
(i) Murder (sec. 302);
(ii)Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (sec. 304);
(iii)Causing death by negligence (sec. 304 A);
(iv)Suicide (sec.305 & 306).
INGREDIENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
10-11-2015
7

Ingredients…
The following are essentials 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; or
(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 of death of a human being…
 Death means death of human being. It does not include
the death of an unborn child, such as a child in the
mother’s womb.
 But in view of explanation 3 it may amount to culpable
homicide to cause death of a living child if any part of
child has been brought forth, though the child may not
have breathed or been completely born.
2. By doing an act….
 Death may be caused in a number of ways; such as by
poising, striking, drowning, or communicating some
shocking news, etc.
 Act here including illegal omission also. An omission is
direction of law, or if it be such a wrong as would be a
good ground for a civil action.
 Therefore, death caused by illegal omission will also
amount illegal if it be an offence, if it be a breach of some
to culpable homicide. 10-11-2015RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035
9

 Death caused by effect of word...
Death may also be caused by effect of word such as by
making some communication to another which caused
excitement which results in death although it would
be difficult to prove that the person, who spoke the
words, anticipated from them an effect which except
under very peculiar circumstance s and in very
peculiar constitutions no word would produce.
3(i) Intention to cause death.----
 Intention means the expectation of the consequence in
question . When a man is charged with doing an act, of
which the probable consequences may be highly
injuries, the intention is an inference of law resulting
from the doing of the act.
 Intention is inferred from the acts of the accused and
the circumstances.

3(ii) With the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death..
 The intention of offender may not be to cause
death. It would be sufficient if he intended to cause
such bodily injury which was likely to cause death.
 The connection between the ‘act’ and the death
caused by the act must be direct and distinct; and
though immediate it must not too remote.
 If the connection between the act and death is
obscure or if it is obscure d by concurrent causes,
or if it is broken by the intervention of the
subsequent causes, or if the time gap between the
act and the death is too long , the above condition is
not fulfilled. 10-11-2015RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035
11

 The expression ‘intention to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death’ merely means an
intention to cause a particular injury, which injury
is, or turns out to be, one likely to cause death. It is
not the death itself which is intended, nor the
effect of injury.
 It is not necessary that the consequences of the
injury are foreseen, it would be sufficient that
there is an intention to cause injury, which injury
is likely to cause death.

3.(iii) With the knowledge that he is likely by such
act to cause death…..
 Knowledge is strong word and imports a certainty and
not merely a probability .
 Here knowledge refers to the personal knowledge of
the person who does the act.
 The accused in exercising the spirit of a girl whom they
believe to be possessed, beat her resulting in her
death. They were held guilty of culpable homicide.
Sometimes even gross negligence may amount to
knowledge….
 If a person acts negligently or without exercising due
care and caution he will be presumed to have
knowledge of the consequences arising from his act.

E.g.… The accused struck a man with a club, bona fide
believing that the object was not a human being but
something supernatural, but, through terror, without
taking any step to satisfy himself that it was not a
human being. Since they had acted with gross
negligence without satisfying himself about the object
which he struck, he was guilty of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.
4. Death caused without intention or
knowledge….
 The offence of culpable homicide presupposes an
intention, or knowledge of likelihood of causing death.
In the absence of such intention or knowledge, the
offence committed may be grievous hurt, or simple
hurt. 10-11-2015RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035
14

SECTION- 300: MURDER. (THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860)..
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 offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or-
MURDER

3rdly. 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-
4thly. If the person committing the act knowns
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.

(a)A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in
consequence. A commits murder.
(b)A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow
is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of
causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is
guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of
a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z
is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would
act not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound
state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily
injury, is not guilty or murder, if he did not intend to cause
death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature
would cause death.
10-11-2015RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035
17

(c)A intentionally gives Z a sword cut, or club-wound
sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary
course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty
of murder, although he may not have intended to cause
Z’s death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a
crowd of person and kills one of them. A is guilty of
murder, although he may not have had a premediated
design to kill any particular individual.

1. When culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,
whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and
sudden provocation, cause the death of the person who
gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First.- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily
provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm
to any person.
Secondly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done
in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in
the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

`Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to
prevent the offence from amounting to murder is question of
fact.
Illustration…
(a)A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given
by Z, intentionally kills Y,Z’s child. This is murder inasmuch as the
provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child
was not cause by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by
the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this
provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing
himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A
kill Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable
homicide.

(c) A lawfully arrested by Z , A bailiff. A is excited to sudden
and violent passion by the arrested , and kills Z. This is
murder , inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing
done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that
he does not believe a word of A’s deposition., and that A has
perjured himself. A is moved to sudden and passion by these
words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempt to pull Z;s nose . Z , in the exercise of the
right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from
doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in
consequence , and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the
provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the
right of the private defence.

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the
exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person
or property, exceed the power given to him by law and causes
the death of the person against whom he is exercising such
right of defence without premeditation and without any
intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the
purpose of such defence.
Illustration…
Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause
grievous hurt to A. A drawn out a pistol. Z persists in the
assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other
means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoot Z
dead. A has not committed murder , but only culpable
homicide.
2
10-11-2015
22

Exception 3…
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public
servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement
of public justice, exceed the powers given to him by law, and
causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes
to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as
such public servant and without ill-will towards the person
whose death is caused.
Exception 4….
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon
a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation…
It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the
provocation or, commits the first assault.

Exception 5….
Culpable homicide is not murder when the person
whose death is caused , being above the age of
eighteen years, suffers death or taken the risk of
death with his own consent.
Illustration….
A, by instigation , voluntarily causes Z, a person
under eighteen year of age, to commit suicide . Here,
on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving
consent to his own death; A has, therefore, abetted
murder.

Section 300 deals with the cases where culpable
homicide is murder.
Murder includes culpable homicide, but a culpable
homicide may or may not amount to murder.
A case of culpable homicide is murder if it falls within
any one of the four clauses of Section 300…
Clauses 1- Act by which the death caused is done
with the intention of causing death.---
 Act including illegal omission also. Death my therefore,
be caused by illegal omission as well.
 Thus where parents neglected to provide proper
sustenance to there children although repeatedly
warned of the consequences and the child dies, it will
be murder. 10-11-2015
25

Clause 2-- With the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knowns to be
likely to cause death—
 In case of an offence falling under this clauses the
mental attitude of the accused is two-fold .
 First, there is intention to cause bodily harm .
• Secondly, there is subjective knowledge that death
will be the likely consequence of the intended
injury.
 Here the offender knowns that bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death of
the person.

CASE – Karumarik v. State of bihar,2001.
(SUPREM COURT)…………
In this case the accused gave blow with churra ( sharp
cutting weapon) on chest of deceased trying to run,
accused caught hold of deceased’s hair and threw her
on ground and inflicted two more blows on abdomen
and back . Injuries inflicted were grievous in nature and
dangerous to life which resulted in causing death of
deceased . It was held that from injuries caused it is
clear that intention of accused was at least to cause
such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.
Therefore conviction of accused for murder was proper.

Clause 3- “ Injury sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death”----
Where a man intentionally inflicts bodily injury sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, he would
be liable for murder.
It was held in state of U.P. v. Virendra Prasad, that under
clause third of section 300 of I.P.C. culpable homicide is
murder if both the following conditions are satisfied :
I. That the act which causes death is done with the intention
of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a
bodily injury; and
II. That the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of
nature was sufficient to cause death.

CASE--- Prakash Hiraman Hingane v. State of
Maharashtra , 1998 (SUPREME COURT).
In this case the appellant had given ten blows with
knife to the deceased who was unarmed. Merely
because there was some grappling between the
appellant and the deceased, possibly because the
deceased tried to see that the blow did not hit him, it
can not be said that the accused was entitled to give
these blows in exercise of right of private defence .
Further the injuries caused by the accused /
appellant to the deceased were intentional and they
were found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death. Under the circumstances the accused
was held liable under section 302 I.P.C. and not under
section 304.

Clause 4--- Knowledge of imminently dangerous
act.
 This clause applies to cases of dangerous action
without an intention to cause specific bodily injury to
any person, e.g., furious driving or firing at a target
near the public road ( Lal Bihari Lal v. Emperor, A.I.R.)
 The act done must be accompanied with the
knowledge that the act was so imminently dangerous
that it must in all probability cause
i. Murder, or
ii. Such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Further, the accused must have committed the act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of
a) causing death, or
b)Such injury as is likely to cause death.

CASE—Sahaj Ram, v. State of Haryana ,
1983(SUPREME COURT)…..
In this case a constable fired five shots with his rifle
at another constable, as a result of which he died on
the spot. It was held that having regard to the fact
that the accused had used a dangerous weapon like
a rifle and having regard to the fact that he had fired
five shots , one of which was fired after the victim was
hit by a bullet and collapsed on the ground, it is
impossible to accept the contention that the
appellant had not done the act with the intention of
causing his death . It is naïve to argue that intention
was merely to frighten him or to cause him grievous
hurt. The case falls under clause 4 to section 300 I.P.
Code.
31

 The distinction between section 299 & 300 made by
clear by Melville, J. in R. v. Govinda (1876).
 In this case the accused had knocked his wife down ,
put one knee on her chest, and struck her two or three
violent blows on the face with the closed fist,
producing extravasation of blood on the brain and she
died in consequence , either on the spot, or very
shortly afterwards, there being no intention to cause
death and the bodily injury not being sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
 The accused was liable for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
32
Distinction between section 299 & 300

Section299
A person commits culpable homicide, if
the act by which the death is caused in
done
a) With the intention of causing death;
b) With the intention of causing such
bodily injury as a likely to cause death;
c)The knowledge that he is likely by such
act to cause death.
Section 300
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which death is caused is done
1) With the intention of causing death;
2) With he intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender known
to be likely to cause the death of the
person to whom the harm is caused;
3) 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;
4) With the knowledge that the act is so
imminently dangerous that it must in
all probability cause death, or such
bodily injury as likely to cause death
The distinction clearly section 299 & section 300
may be put as follow…

1) Section 300 begins with the words” except in the cases
hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is murder.” This
means that culpable homicide is not murder if the case
falls within any of the exception mentioned in section
300.(Minoi w/o Hudkia v. Emperor, 1938)
2) Whenever there is an intention to cause death it would
always be a case of murder unless the case falls within one
of the exception to section 300
3) The essence of distinction between clause (b) of section
299 and clause(2) of section 300 lies in the knowledge on
the part of the offender that the person harmed is likely to
die.
The offence is murder if the offender known that the
particular person injured is likely, either from peculiarity of
constitution, or immature age, or other special
circumstances, to be killed by an injury which would not
ordinarily cause death.(R v. Govinda.1876) 10-11-2015RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035 34

4) A compression of clause (b) of section 299 with Clause(3)
of section 300 would show that the offence is culpable
homicide if the bodily injury intendant to be inflicted is
likely to cause death; it is murder if such injury is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The distinction is fine but appreciable.(R. v. Govinda,1876)
 An injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death only means that “death will be most
probable result of the injury having regard to ordinary
course of nature”.
The distinction between clause(b) of section 299 with
Clause(3) of section 300 would depend very much upon the
degree of probability or likelihood of the death in
consequence of the injury.

5) Clause(c) of the section 299 and Clause (4) of
section 300 appear to apply
to cases in which there is no intention to cause
death or bodily injury but knowledge that the act is
dangerous and therefore likely to cause death.
Clause(4) requires knowledge in a very high degree
of probability.
The following factor are necessary:
i. That the act is imminently dangerous;
ii. That in all probability it will cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death; &
iii.That the act is done without any excuse for
incurring the risk.
36

Section 304- 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 ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused
is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten 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.
PUNISHMENT OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE & MURDER

38
Section 304-A- Causing death by negligence
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 fine, or with both.
Section 308- Attempt to commit culpable homicide
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 amount to murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both, and if 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 fine, or with both.
Illustration
A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such
circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence
defined in this section.

Section 302- Punishment for murder….
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
REFRENCE……..
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860(BARE ACT)….
 ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL RULLING(ACR)….
 ALL INDIA RULLING(AIR)….
 ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL CASES(ACC)….
 INDIAN PENAL CODE By SURY NARAYAN MISHRA (CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATION)….

THANKS FOR
WATCHING AND LISTENING
Now is
THERE ANY QUESTION???

Culpable homicide & murder

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Culpable homicide & murder

Recently uploaded

Culpable homicide & murder