0

CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER- THE DIVIDING LINE

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO: -

DR. FR. PETER LADIS F.

FACULTY OF CRIMINAL LAW

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:-

DEEPTANGSHU KAR

THIRD SEMESTER

ROLL NUMBER – 1723

B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)

PROJECT SUBMITTED IN THE FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE

CRIMINAL LAW – I FOR ATTAINING THE DEGREE OF B.A., LL.B (HONS.)

SEPTEMBER, 2018

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA - 800001

 1

DECLARATION
I, Deeptangshu Kar, student of National Law University, hereby declare that the project
work entitled “CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER- THE DIVIDING LINE”
submitted to the Chanakya National Law University, Patna is a record of an original work
done by me under the guidance of Dr.Fr. Peter Ladis F., faculty of Criminal Law, Chanakya
National Law University, Patna.

THANK YOU,

NAME: Deeptangshu Kar

COURSE: B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

ROLL NO: 1723

SEMESTER – 3rd

SESSION- 2017-2022
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would specially like to thank my guide, mentor, Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F., without whose
constant support and guidance this project would have been a distant reality.

This work is an outcome of an unparalleled infrastructural support that I have received from
Chanakya National Law University, Patna.

I owe my deepest gratitude to the library staff of the college.

It would never have been possible to complete this study without an untiring support from my
family, specially my parents.

This study bears testimony to the active encouragement and guidance of a host of friends and
well-wishers.
 3

INDEX

INTRODUCTION.. …………………………………………………………………….Page 5

 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 HYPOTHESIS

 RESEARCH QUESTION

 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 LIMITATON OF THE STUDY

 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE: MEANING…………………………………………..Page 8

3. ESSENTIAL INGRADIENTS OF CUKPABLE HOMICIDE UNDER

IPC……………………………………………………………..………….Page 9

4. MURDER:
DEFINITION………………………………………………...……………….Page 14

5. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF MURDER UNDER

IPC...….………………………………………..Page 15

6. WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER……………………Page 17

7. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE…Page 23

8. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS…………………………………...Page 26

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………….Page 27
 4

INTRODUCTION
The first and foremost concern of criminal law is to protect and preserve certain fundamental
social values and institutions. With this dictum, it gives a set of norms for the conduct of
human behaviour it also puts certain penalty for the disrespect or threatens substantial harm
which are related to individual interest, public interest and fundamental social values. Going
through the ‗Offences Related to Human Body‘, one can understand that it exhibits a deep
understanding of social culture of the classic Indian Society.

In the first place, it may be premised that the two offences of Culpable Homicide and Murder
are neither mutually exhaustive nor exclusive, nor do they, between themselves, provide that
every case of killing must be either the one or the other. Murder under Indian Penal Code,
1860 is defined as an aggravated form of culpable homicide under Section 299. In this view,
it can be inferred that all murder must necessarily be culpable homicide, but not vice versa.
But an offence may possess all the essential ingredients of murder, and yet be only culpable
homicide, if it possesses the additional mitigating elements set out in the exceptions. The
degree of the offence in some cases also varies by reason of alleviating circumstances
reducing the primary heinousness of crime. Apart from this, an offence may still be culpable
homicide, in the first instance, if it does not possess the attributes of the offence of murder.
Though the two class of offences looks different, when seen by the naked eyes, though they
are so closely interlinked with each other because of which in many instances, it becomes
difficult to evaluate the degree of intensity of the crime and to provide a suitable punishment
for it.

It is easy to observe that the most common reason on which the judgment given in a murder
cases is reversed is because on a significant examination of the evidence and circumstances
of the case, the judge of the upper court realises that the case falls under the category of
culpable homicide and not murder as a result of which the sentence is changed from that of
murder to culpable homicide.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The topic is chosen because of the preconceived vague perception in the minds of laymen as
well as legal professionals and most of the times many jurists also confuse between these two
kinds of offence. The researcher shall endeavor to remove the confusion and usher in clarity
regarding the difference between culpable homicide and murder through materialization of
this project.

HYPOTHESIS

All murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are not murder.
 5

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What are the essential elements of Culpable homicide?

2. What are the essential elemets of Murder?

3. What are differences between the punishments given in Murder and Culpable
Homicide?

4. What is the judicial trend concerning culpable homicide and murder?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has resorted to the Doctrinal form of research methodology for the fulfillment
of the project.

There are 2 kinds of data that are used by the researcher—

1. Primary data (Legislatures, Indian Penal Codes, judgements etc.)

2. Secondary data (case commentary, Interpretation of statues etc.)

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

1. Title : THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AS AMENDED BY THE CRIMINAL

LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2013.
Legal commentators are a part of great lineage of pathfinders whose invaluable contribution
played a significant role in the evolution and development of law. Commentaries attempt to
analytically or descriptively expound law (statute/code or branch) or by delving into a deep
and broad discussion into basic principles of law taking aid of letter of law, case laws.
Through that the commentator comments what is law and what should be the law. In its bare
form Indian Penal Code was devoid of the very principles it was built around, viz., certainty,
uniformity, comprehensibility and precision. This ignominy was removed by two authors-
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal who heralded a new dawn in the Indian legal literature. Into its 118th
year, Ratanlal& Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code is the oldest commentary on Indian Penal
Code. The fact that this book is into its 34th edition (herein after ‗the current edition) is a
testimony of its biblical value. This edition has has been brought forth by two authors who
 6

have affixed their indelible imprint in their respective fields. Honourable Mr. Justice K.T.
Thomas is a doyen in the legal echelons. Amongst the pantheons in the temple of justice, His
Lordship has captained and stewarded landmark cases in constitutional law and criminal law.
Adv. M.A. Rashid is an erudite exuberant and an enterprising author who has rendered
pioneering contribution to legal literature.

2. Title: P S A PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW.

Revised by K I Vibhute. P S A Pillai‘s Criminal Law has justifiably come to be known as one
of the most archetypal text on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ever since the publication of its
first edition in 1956. This book has comprehensively covered all aspects of Criminal Law
with detailed analysis of all the categories of offences assimilated in the This latest edition of
the book on one hand preserves the essence of the decades old legacy of providing
remarkable illustrative inputs to all those interested in the field of criminal law and on the
other covers landmark judgments which revolve around the emerging trends in the area
besides covering reforms suggested by the Law Commission and other bodies. In this book
the offences are dealt with in an academic framework with legislative definitions that bring
out the interrelationship of academic framework and the legislative framework. This edition
is a must have for all those associated with the criminal law subject including but not limited
to practitioners, academicians and students.

LIMITATION
The researcher could not cover the topic exhaustively due to some serious constraints like
time, money and absence of collective effort (this project being an individual assignment).

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This project will be helpful in the clear-cut differentiation of Culpable Homicide and Murder.
 7

CULPABLE HOMICIDE: MEANING

According to sec-299 of the Penal Code-

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or 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 ant to cause death commits the
offence of culpable homicide.

Illustrations

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a 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 know it. A intending to cause or knowing
it to be likely to cause z`s death induces b to fire at the bush. B fires and kills z. here b
may be guilty of n offence but a has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(c) A by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it kills b who is behind a bush a
not knowing that he was there. Here although a was doing an unlawful ant the 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.

Explanation 1. A person who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring 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 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 has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathe or been completely born.
 8

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE UNDER IPC

Homicide is the killing of a human being by a human being. It is either lawful or unlawful.
Culpable Homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide. It is the causing of death by doing:

i. An act with the intention of causing death.

ii. An act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or

iii. An act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.

Without one or other of those elements, an act, though it may be in its nature criminal and
may occasion death, will not amount to the offence of Culpable Homicide. It must be noted
that this Section defines culpable homicide simpliciter. The scheme of the code is that first
the genus, ―culpable homicide‖ is defined and then ―murder‖, which is a species of culpable
homicide, is defined.1 Culpable homicide is genus murder is species. All murders are
culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are not murders.2 What is left out of culpable
homicide after the special characteristics of murder have been taken away from it is culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.4

Essential Elements of Culpable Homicide

The main qualifiers for the culpable homicide is causing of death by doing an act with the
intention, or with the intention5 of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or
with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Without one or other of those elements,
an act, though it may be in criminal nature, will not amount to the offence of culpable
homicide.6

The essential elements of Culpable Homicide are:

1. Causing Death
2. Death must be done by:
 Doing an Act With The Intention Of Causing Death

1
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 3802.
2
Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., 2013(1)Crimes407(SC).
 9

 With The Intention Of Causing Such Bodily Injury as is likely to cause death with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.

The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Unless one of the mental
states mentioned in ingredient is present, an act causing death cannot amount to Culpable
Homicide.7 Thus where a constable who had loaded but defective gun with him wanted to
arrest an accused who was going on a bullock cart by climbing on the cart and there was a
scuffle between him and the accused and in course of which the gun went off and killed the
constable, it was held that accused could not be held guilty of Culpable Homicide.

Circumstances For Culpable Homicide

a) Causes Death: In order to hold a person liable under the impugned Section there must be
causing of death of a human being as defined under Section 46 of the Penal Code. The
causing of death of a child in the mother‘s womb is not homicide as stated in Explanation 3
appended to Section 299, Penal Code But the person would not be set free. He would be
punishable for causing miscarriage either under Section 312 or 315 Penal Code depending on
the gravity of the injury. The act of causing death amounts to Culpable Homicide if any part
of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been
completely born. The clause ‗though the child may not have breathed‘ suggests that a child
may be born alive, though it may not breath (respire) , or it may respire so imperfectly that it
may be difficult to obtain clear proof that respiration takes place. Causing of death must be of
a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least partially an infant
under delivery or just delivered.

b) By Doing An Act With The Intention Of Causing Death: Death may be caused by a
hundered and one means, such as by poisioning, drowning, striking, beating and so on and so
forth. As explained under Section 32, Penal Code the word ‗act‘ has been given a wider
meaning in the Code in as much as it includes not only an act of commission, but illegal
omissions as well and the word ‗illegal‘ is applicable to everything which is an offence or
which is prohibited by law, or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for civil
action (s.43). Therefore death caused by illegal omission will amount to Culpable Homicide.

i. Death caused by effect of words on imaginations or passions: The authors of the Code
observe : ― The reasonable course, in our opinion , is to consider speaking as an act, and to
treat A as guilty of voluntary Culpable Homicide, if by speaking he has voluntarily caused
Z‘s death, whether his words operated circuitously by inducing Z to swallow a poison or
throwing Z into convulsions.‖

c) With The Intention Of Causing Such Bodily Injury as is likely to cause death: . The
word ‗intention‘ in clause (a) to Section 299, Penal Code has been used in its ordinary sense,
i.e., volitional act done without being able to forsee the consequence with certitude. The
 10

connection between the ‗act‘ and the death caused thereby must be direct and distinct; and
though not immediate it must not be too remote. If the nature of the connection between the
act and the death is in itself obscure, or if it is obscured by the action of concurrent causes, or
if the connection is broken by the intervention of subsequent causes, or if the interval of time
between death and the act is too long, the above condition is not fulfilled. Where a constable
fired five shots in succession at another constable resulting in his death, it was held that it
would be native to suggest that he had neither intention to kill nor any knowledge that
injuries sufficient to kill in ordinary course of nature would not follow. His acts squarely fell
in clauses 2,3 and 4 of s.300, I.P.C i.e Culpable Homicide amounting to murder.

d) With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death : ‗Knowledge‘ is a
strong word and imports ceratinity and not merely a probability.If the death is caused under
circumstances specified under Section 80, the person causing the death will be exonerated
under that Section. But, if it is caused in doing an unlawful act, the question arises whether he
should be punished for causing it. The Code says that when a person engaged in the
commission of an offence, without any addition on account of such accidental death. The
offence of Culpable Homicide supposes 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. It is only where death is attributed to an injury which the offender did not
know would endanger life would be likely to cause death and which in normal conditions
would not do so notwithstanding death being caused, that the offence will not be Culpable
Homicide but grievous or simple hurt. Every such case depends upon the existence of
abnormal conditions unkown to the person who inflicts injury. Once it is established that an
act was a deliberate acct and not the result of accident or rashness or negligence, it obvious
that the offence would be Culpable Homicide.

e) Death Caused of Person Other Than Intended: To attract the provisions of this Section
it suffices if the death of a human being is caused whether the person was intended to be
killed or not. For instance, B with the intention of killing A in order to obtain the insured
amount gave him some sweets mixed with poison. The intended victim ate some of the
sweets and threw the rest away which were picked up by two children who ate them and died
of poisoning. It was held that B as liable for murder of the children though he intended to kill
only A.

f) Death Caused Inadvertently without Intention While Doing an Unlawful Act: It has
been clearly stated in I.P.C that a person will not be liable for Culpable Homicide, if he
causes the death of a person while doing an unlawful act, provided he did not intend to kill or
cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to have that effect. On the other hand,
under English law, if a person whilst committing an unlawful act accidently kills another, he
would be liable for manslaughter or murder according to whether his act constituted a felony
or misdemeanour.
 11

g) Consent is not a defence to Manslaughter: The House of Lords in R v Walker held that
the respondent a truck driver carrying illegal immigrants will be criminally responsible for
involuntary manslaughter, if the act results in death, even if the victim has consented to take
such risk engaged in some joint unlawful activity. In this case the defendant, truck driver ( a
Dutch national) drove a lorry from Rotterdam (Netherlands) to Zeebrugge (United Kingdom).
The lorry had been loaded with a refrigerated container in which 60 Chinese (illegal
immigrants) had been hidden to conceal the illegal human cargo behind a load of tomatoes.
The container was sealed apart from a small air vent which was closed for 5 hours prior to the
ferry crossing to Dover to preserve secrecy. On disembarkation at Dover (in England) the
customs officers examined the container and discovered the bodies of 58 immigrants, who
had suffocated to death. Walker was charged with 58 offences of manslaughterand
conspiracy to facilitate the entry of illegal entrants into United Kingdom. Applying the
doctrine of negligence( ex turpi causa non oritur actio) for causing death of the victims the
trial convicted and sentenced the respondent to 6 years imprisonment for each the
manslaughter charges to run concurrently and eight years imprisonment for the conspiracy to
facilitate entry of illegal immigrants with a total of 14 years. This decision was upheld by the
House of Lords as well.

The Distinction between Knowledge and Intention

We must keep in mind the distinction between knowledge and intention. Knowledge in the
context of Section 299 would, mean notice or realization or understanding. The distinction
between the terms 'knowledge' and 'intention' again is a difference of degrees. An inference
of knowledge that it is likely to cause death must be arrived at keeping in view the fact
situation obtaining in each case. The accused must be aware of the consequences of his act. In
the case of Kesar Singh vs. State of Haryana3, it was observed that knowledge denotes a bare
state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which the human mind might itself remain
supine or inactive whereas intention connotes a conscious state in which mental faculties are
roused into activity and summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed
towards a particular and specific end which the human mind conceives and perceives before
itself. Kenny defines ‗Intention‘ as to intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a
desired objective, the noun 'intention' in the present connection is used to denote the state of
mind of a man who not only foresees but also desires the possible consequences of his
conduct. So, there cannot be intention unless there is also foresight, since a man must decide
to his own satisfaction, and accordingly must foresee, that to which his express purpose is
directed. Whereas Russell on Crime has observed ―In the present analysis of the mental
element in crime the word 'intention' is used to denote the mental attitude of a man who has
resolved to bring about a certain result if he can possibly do so. He shapes his line of conduct
3
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008 15 SCC 753.
 12

so as to achieve a particular end at which he aims.‖ It can thus be seen that the 'knowledge' as
contrasted with 'intention' signifies a state of mental realization with the bare state of
conscious awareness of certain facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive. This
was discussed extensively in Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration4) stating: "We may
note at this state that 'intention' is different from 'motive' or 'ignorance' or 'negligence'. It is
the 'knowledge' or 'intention' with which the act is done that makes difference, in arriving at a
conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. Therefore, it is necessary to
know the meaning of these expressions as used in these provisions. The 'intention' and
'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind and their existence has
to be gathered from the circumstances, such as the, weapon used, the ferocity of attack,
multiplicity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the code
designedly used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and it is accepted that the knowledge of
the consequences which may result in doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that
such consequences should ensue. Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that
he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow.
But that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention that such
consequences should ensue. As compared to ‗knowledge‘, ‗intention‘ requires something
more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to
achieve a particular end.‖

4
Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration , (1991) 2 SCC 32.
 13

MURDER: DEFINITION
Sec.-300: murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder if
the act by which the death is caused in dove with the intention of causing death or –

Secondly- if it is done with the intention of causing 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 os 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.

Illustrations

a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him.Z dies in consequence.A commits murder.

d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowed of persons and kills one of
them.A is guilty of murder,although he may not have had a premediated design to kill any
particular individual.
 14

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF MURDER UNDER IPC

―Culpable homicide‖ is genus and ―Murder‖ its species wherein all murder is culpable
homicide but not vice versa so. Every act which falls within one or more of the four clauses
of Section 300 is murder, and also falls within the definition of culpable homicide in Section
299 of Indian Penal Code. Exceptions 1 to 5 to Section 300 indicate circumstances where
culpable homicide is not murder.5 Murder is defined under Section 300 of Indian Penal Code,
1860. The essential elements of murder are:

1. The intention to cause death

2. Intention to cause such bodily injury knowing that the injury caused is likely to cause
death.

3. Intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death

4. Knowledge about the act that it is so imminently dangerous and in all probability it will
cause death.

From the bare perusal of the Section discussed above, the four clauses under the Section
provide the essential ingredients wherein culpable homicide amounts to murder. But the
Section also provides five exceptional situations. We can say that if the cases fall under these
exceptions then it will be considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Any of
the exception qualifies then the murder converts into culpable homicide. These exceptions
provided under Section 300 are:

1. Grave and sudden provocation

2. Private defense

3. Act of public servant

4. Sudden fight

5. Consent

Analysis of Murder

According to Lord Coke, Murder means such act where a person unlawfully kill any other
person with aforethought malice, which may be expressed or implied.

In order to constitute the crime of murder,as above defined:

1st. There must be a killing

5
Verran v. State of M. P. (2011) 11 SCC 367.
 15

2nd.The killing must be of a human being

3rd.It must be unlawful

4th.It must be with malice

And all these elements must be combined in every case of this offence.For e.g. if there be not
the first or only the first,it is no ‗homicide‘; if there be the first and second only ,without the
others,it is ‗justifiable or exclusable homicide‘ ; if there be the first,second and third ,without
the fourth , it is ‗manslaughter‘ but where all concur, it is ‗murder‘.

The crime of murder is the willful taking of another person's life. In almost all jurisdictions
murder is classified as either first-degree or second-degree.

First-degree murder is both the intentional and premeditated killing of a person, or as it is

sometimes referred to with malice aforethought, which means the killer deliberately killed
out of ill will toward the victim.

Second-degree murder is charged when the killing was intentional but not premeditated, but
also was not done in the "heat of passion." Second-degree murder can also be charged when
someone is killed as a result of reckless conduct without concern for human life.
 16

WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER

Exception 1.-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power
of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or cause the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos:

Firstly.-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 defense.

Explanation.- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence
from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations

(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 caused 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 kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.

(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the
arrest, 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 passion by these
words, and kills Z. This is murder.

(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose. Z, in exercise of the right of private defense, lays hold of A to
 17

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 private defense.

(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a by stander, intending to

take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that
purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A
is guilty of murder.

Grave and sudden provocation

Grave and sudden provocation means that situation where 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 loss his self-control.Words and gestures may also,under certain
circumstances,cause grave and sudden provocation.6

What amount to grave and sudden provcation depriving the accused of his power of self-
control may vary according to circumstances of each case as also according to the general
standard of self-control among the people of class involved.7

Grave and sudden provocation is a mixed question of law and facts8

Where the victim had committed sodomy on the son of the accused,who killed the victim,it
was held that there was grave and sudden provocation.9

Exception 2.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith
of the right of private defense of person or property, exceeds the powers given to him by law
and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defense
without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for
the purpose of such defense.

Illustration

Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out
a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that can by no other means prevent
himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only
culpable homicide.
Exception-2 deals with cases where death is caused in the excessive exercise of the right of

6
AIR 1962 SC 605
7
AIR 1972 SC 502
8
AIR 1982 SC 31
9
AIR 1977 SC 1801
 18

private defence. Four cardinal conditions must have existed before the taking of the life of a
person is justified on the plea of self-defence. Firstly, the accused must be free from thfault in
bringing about the encounter Secondly, there must be present an impending peril to life or of
great bodily harm,either real or so appearent as to create honest belief of an existing necessity
.Thirdly, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat and fourthly, there
must have been a necessity for taking life.10

Plea of private defence of person is not available against person other than assailant.

A person who exceeds his right of private defence and kills his assailant comes under the
exception and is guilty under section304 and not under sec.30211

In a charge of murder, the plea of private defence was not available when accused continued
to assault after the deceased had fallen down and rendered harmless.12

For the application of this exception it is essential that the person causing hurt in the
bonafide exercise of the right of private defence should act without any intention of doing
more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.13

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, exceeds 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.

This exception protects a public servant or a person aiding a public servant acting the
advancement of public justice.,if either of them exceed the powers given to them by law and
cause death. It gives protection so long as the the public servant acts in good faith; but if his
act is act is illegal and unauthorized by law or if he glaringly exceeds the powers given to him
by law,the exception will not protect him.

Where a police officer in the zeal of his duty to trace out an offence commits physical torture
on the suspect causing his death,he is guilty of murder and can not claim the benefit of this
exception.14

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.

10
(1959)CrLJ 401
11
AIR 1980 SC 660
12
AIR 1983 SC 108
13
48 CrLJ 809
14
1955 CrLJ 1385
 19

Explanation.- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits
the first assault.

Illustration:

The word ‗fight‘ conveys something more than a verbal quarrel.It is not necessary that
weapons should be used in a fight. In order to constitute a fight,it is necessary that blows
should be exchanged even if they do not all find their target.The fight must be with the person
who is killed and not with another person

The words ‗’undue advantage‘‘ in this exception means ‗‘unfair advantage‘‘

Sudden Quarrel is that which is not pre-arranged. If on any sudden quarrel,blows pass
without any intention to kill or injure another materially and in the course of the scuffle, after
the parties are heated by the contest,one kills the other with a deadly weapon,it is culpable
homicide and not murder.The lapse of time between the quaqrrel and the fight is therefore a
very important consideration.If there intervens a sufficient time for passion to subside and for
reason to interpose,the killing will be murder.

This exception applies only to those cases where on a sudden quarrel both the parties begin to
fight upon an equal footing.In such cases,it is immaterial,which party offers the provocation
or commits the first assault because the combat is mutual.

Where in course of a sudden fight the deceased inflicted knife injury and run away to be
chased by the accused and done to death. It was held that, the case came under this
exception.15

Sudden fight is that which is arises out of chance encounter where passions having
been ignited slightest blow results in fight and opposing parties assault each other and basic
feature is initial absence of premeditation to cause death.

Where time span between quarrel and fight was only a few minutes,occurrence can be said to
sudden within the meaning of exception 4 of sec-300.16

Sudden fight resulting from an earlier dispute may also come within this exception.17
Exception 5.- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused,
being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own
consent.

Illustration

15
AIR 1976 SC 1133
16
AIR 2002 SC 1168
17
AIR 1978 SC 3
 20

A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years 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.

Voluntarily consenting to take risk: Exception-5 refers to cases where a man consents to
submit to the doing of some particular act, either knowing that it will certainly cause death or
death will be the likely result; but it does not refer to the running of a risk of death from
something which a man intends to avert if he possibly can do so, even by causing the death of
the person from whom the danger is to be anticipated.

The exception-5 will not apply where there is an agreement to fight between two riotious
mobs armed with all sorts of weapons the character of which is left individual choice.Where a
person kills another who is more than eighteen years of age and pleads it was done with the
consent of the deceased in circumstances in which the court can hold that it is not impossible
that the deceased felling desparate and depressed asked to be killed and no motive is to be
proved against the accused for deliberately killing the deceased of his own free will he is
entitled to the benefit of this exception.18

It must be proved that the person killed had the full knowledge of the situation,was
determined to suffer death or take the risk of death, the determination have existed up to the
moment of his death.Consent in this section implies not only knowledge of the risk but a
judgement in regard to it.

Case References

Direct and distinct connection:

The test to determine whether the accused has caused death is to see whether the cause of
death is directly associated with the act.19

The connection between the primary cause and death should not be too remote.20

Where a person receives injuries on head but progress well in the hospital and after a month
and a half when he had left the hospital, develops pneumonia and dies, it can not be said that
the injury cause was the cause of death.21

18
(1930)54 Mad 504
19
1980(82)PUN LR page 8
20
AIR 1964(SC) page 900
21
AIR 1924 ALL Page441
 21

The accused whom a married women suspected of having affair with her sister, was stopped
by the accused on her way.He immediately doused her with some inflammable substance
and set her on fire with his lighter. In that state of burning inferno she ran to a nearby water
column of the railway station,sat under it and saved herself from further burning. A women
covered her body and took her to a hospital. She died after a fortnight. Justifying the
conviction of the accused,the Court said that it could not be said,only because of the time
gap, that death might have been due to other causes. The cause of death has to be ascertained
on the basis of broad probabilities and not on academic possibilities. It could not be said that
the accused did not know that the type of burns which he caused were not likely to cause
death.22

In a qurrel between the accused and his father, the accused attacked his father with a dagger
causing death and also attacked the intervener who were his step mother and sisters. No
injury was caused to the accused because all others were unarmed. The exception was not
attracted. He was guilty of murder.23

The murder having taken place while the accused was living with his wife is the same house ,
the accused husband under section 106 of the Evidence Act is under obligation is explain
how his wife had met with her death. In absence of any explanation coming from his side ,
none other than the accused husband was responsible for causing such death.24

Devine influence

Where the parent of a child threw their child to chrocodiles in the superstitious believe that it
would be ultimately save, it was held that it was culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
It is submitted that the decision ia not correct, it was found in the case that there was no
intention to cause death but they had the knowledge that it would be likely to cause death of
the child.The case clearly falls within the section 300 secondly.25

22
Patel Harilal Joitaram vs.State of Gujrat AIR 2001SC 2944
23
Sikander vs. State(Delhi)Admin.
24
Sudhir kumar Das Vs The State 60 DLR(2008) 261
25
AIR 1921 CAL 501
 22

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE

a. Clause (a) of Section 299 corresponds with Clause (1) of Section 300.

b. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with Clause (2) and (3) of Section 300, and

c. Clause (c) of Section 299 corresponds with Clause (4) of Section 300.

The words italicized mark the differences between culpable homicide and murder. Thus
―Except in the cases hereinafter expected” – Section 300 begins with the words ―except in
the cases hereinafter expected, culpable homicide is not murder if the case falls within any of
the exceptions mentioned in Section 300.26

1) Intention to kill: Clause (a) of Section 299 and Clause (1) of Section 300 – The causing of
death by doing an act with the intention of causing death is culpable homicide. It is also
murder, unless the case falls within one of the exceptions in Section 300.27

2) Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death: Clause (b) of Section 299 and
Clause (2) of Section 300 – The essence of Clause (2) of Section 300 is to be found in the
knowledge that the person harmed is likely to die. ―The offence is murder if the offender
knows 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.28 The Section illustrates this by supposing the case of a person
striking a blow is likely to cause his death of which the former has knowledge. The clause is
intended to meet cases of enlarged liver and spleen, which may be easily ruptured by a blow
of no great violence, in which case the degree of criminality depends upon its knowledge.
Clause (b) above of Section 299 postulates no such know1edge.29

3) Intention to cause bodily Injury likely to cause death: Clause (b) of Section 299 and
Clause (3) of Section 300- The offence is culpable homicide if the bodily injury intended 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. The word ―likely‖
means ―probably‖, it is distinguished from ―possibly‖. When the chances of a thing
happening are even with or greater than, its not happening, we say that the thing will
―probably happen. When the chances of its happening are very high, we say that it will ‗most
probably‘ happen. An injury ―sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death‖
merely means that death will be the ‗most probable‖ result of the injury having regard to

26
Reg v. Gorabehand Gope. 5 W. R. 45 (F.B.). per Peacock, C.J.
27
Ibid.
28
Per Melvill J, in Reg. v. Govinda. 1..L.R. 1 Bom. 342.
29
Reg. v. Govinda, 1.L.R. 1 Born. 342: see also King v. Aung Nyun, AIR. 1940 Rang 259: 42 Cr.L.J.
 23

ordinary course of nature. The expression does not mean that death must result in which such
an injury is caused. Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 thus appear to be
correlated, and the question whether the causing of an injury is culpable homicide or murder
depends upon the degree of the likelihood or probabilities of death in consequence of the
injury. ―Practically‖, observed Melvill. J., ―it will generally resolve itself into a consideration
of the nature of the weapon used. A blow from the fist or stick on a vital part may be likely to
cause death: a wound from a sword in a vital part is sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause death.‖ It may be pointed out however, that it is not so much the nature of the
weapon used as the nature of the injury inflicted that would determine the difference here
made. The weapon may be same, but it may cause injuries of different proportions. It depends
upon the constitution of the man, the part of the body injured and the degree of violence used.
In the instant case the question was whether the appellant could be said to have caused the
death, when the immediate cause of death was some pulmonary embolism in left lung,
infection and shock and obstruction in circulation of blood in artery. The Court observed in
most cases, even if the fatal wounds are inflicted, the wounds themselves are not the
immediate cause of death in the medical sense. But, even in such cases death must be
attributed to the fatal injuries which lead to death. In order that a person should be held
responsible for having caused the death, it is not necessary that this cause is the immediate
cause of death, in the medical sense. If P causes to Q injuries likely to cause death, and as a
result of such injuries it is necessary to perform an operation on Q, the injured man, and the
injured man dies as a cumulative result of the original injuries as well as the operation. P
must be deemed to have caused death of Q, because the operation itself was necessitated by
what he had done, and therefore he must be held to be the cause of the operation itself and the
consequential death.30 The doctor‘s statement to the effect that the death was caused on
account of shock and hemorrhage on account of the injuries noticed on the person of the
deceased cannot be considered equivalent to the statement that ―the injuries by themselves
were in the ordinary course of nature likely to cause death.‖ In the absence of the proper
opinion by the doctor, it is difficult to arrive at a positive conclusion that the injuries should
be considered as likely to cause death.31

4) Difference between Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300 – Clause (3) of Section 300
contemplates an injury caused to a normal grown-up human being and does not take account
of the special physical condition of the person harmed accelerating his death. On the other

30
Kumbhar Narsi Bechar v. State, AIR 1962 Guj
31
Jiwa Ram v. State. 1964 Raj L.W. 554 at p. 555: AIR 1965 Raj. 32. Waheed and Others v. State of A.P. (2002) 7
SCC
 24

hand, Clause (2) of the Section refers to the case of a person with a peculiar physical
condition and to the accused having know1edge of that peculiarity.

5) Knowledge, homicidal and murderous: Clause (c) of Section 299 and Clause (4) of
Section 300- Clause (c) of Section 299 and Cl. (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of
the probability of the act causing death. Clause (4) of Section 300 requires the knowledge in a
very high degree of probability. The following factors are necessary:

1. That the act is imminently dangerous

2. That in all probability it will cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
and

3. That the act is done without any excuse for incurring the risk.

Clause (4) of Section 300 is not intended to apply to cases in which a person intends to inflict
an injury likely to cause death because the Section speaks of knowledge and not the intention
of an injury likely to cause death. Usually it applies to cases in which there was no intention
of causing death or of causing any bodily injury.
 25

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The first and foremost concern of criminal law is to protect and preserve certain fundamental
social values and institutions. With this dictum, it gives a set of norms for the conduct of
human behavior it also puts certain penalty for the disrespect or threatens substantial harm
which are related to individual interest, public interest and fundamental social values. Going
through the ‗Offences Related to Human Body‘, one can understand that it exhibits a deep
understanding of social culture of the classic Indian Society. The wordings of each and every
provision related to offences against human body are clear and the punishments given are
appropriate. Dealing with the two points, culpable homicide and murder in detail I understand
the aspects and the deep meaning of these two provisions. The offences related to human
body is the most important part of Indian Penal Code. The only thing which required is to
establish a good society and understand the rules and regulations and punish the offences in
the manner prescribed under Indian Penal Code.

There is no radical difference between the offence of culpable homicide and murder. The
causing of death is common to both the offences. The act which caused it is the act of the
offender in each case. There must necessarily be criminal intention or knowledge in both
cases. The true difference, then, lies in the degree there being the greater intention or
knowledge of the fatal result in the one case than the other. This difference is attempted to be
accentuated by the four clauses describing the offence under this section. But no abstract
enunciation of the difference can be an infallible guide in determining the true nature of the
crime. All the same, it is very necessary to see how far the code regards the two offences as
distinct and what the criterion for distinguishing them is.
 26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Gaur, K .D; A Text Book of The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing
Company Pvt. Limited, New Delhi, Third Edition 2004.

2. Mishra, S.N; Indian Penal Code; Central Law Publications, Allahabad, Tenth Edition
(September) 2001.

3. Srivastava, O.P; Principles of Criminal Law, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, Fifth
Edition, 2010