culpable homicide & murder

CULPABLE HOMICIDE & MURDER

RAKESH KUMAR MISHRA15MSFS035M.Sc.(FORENSIC SCIENCE)1ST SEMESTER

01/05/2023RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035 1

1..CULPABLE HOMICIDE……..• DEFINATION IN THE INDIAN PENAL

CODE,1860…• RELATED ILLUSTRATION…• EXPLANATION……• INGREDIENTS OF CALPABLE HOMICIDE2.. MURDER………• DEFINATION IN THE INDIAN PENAL

CODE,1860…• RELATED ILLUSTRATION…..• Exception….• Ingredient of murder…

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

01/05/2023RAKESH 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.

Illustration…..


(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.

EXPLANATION….


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


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.

--01/05/2023RAKESH 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. 01/05/2023RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035 10

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. 01/05/2023RAKESH 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. 01/05/2023RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035 13

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.01/05/2023RAKESH 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.

Illustration…


(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.

Exception…


`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.

Explanation…


(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.

Exception 2…


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.

Ingredient of murder….


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. 01/05/2023RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035 29

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. 01/05/2023RAKESH MISHRA , 15MSFS035 30

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.


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.


Distinction between section 299 & 300


Section299A 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) 01/05/2023RAKESH 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.


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


Section 304-A- Causing death by negligenceWhoever 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 homicideWhoever 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.

IllustrationA, 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???
