Culpable Homicide And Murders in BNS

Culpable Homicide And Murders - Cases And Concepts

Homicide

The word 'homicide' has been derived from Latin terms homi (man) and cido (cut). Thus, homicide means the killing of a human being. 'Homicide' is the generic term for the causing, or accelerating the death of a human being by another human being.

However, every homicide is not unlawful.

Culpable Homicide

Section 299 - Culpable Homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge, that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Explanation 1- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2 - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3 - The causing of the death of 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 breathed or been completely born.

Culpable Homicide is defined under section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It consists of both physical and mental elements.

Where an act is done with the intention of causing death or with such knowledge that the act which he/she is going to undertake will result in death of the person or would cause such bodily or physical injury that would lead to his death would satisfy both the physical and mental requirement.

Essential Ingredients of Culpable Homicide:

1. There must be death of a Person;
2. The death should have been caused by the act of another person;
3. The act causing death should have been done with:
1. the intention of causing death;
2. the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; (read with explanation I and II)
3. with knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.

Death of a Human Being

The very first essential of culpable homicide is that there must be causing of death of a human being. Explanation 3 of Section 299 provides that 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 breathed or been completely born.

The Death Should Have Been Caused by the Act of Another Person

1. Another test to decide whether a particular act or omission would be covered by the definition of culpable homicide, is to verify whether the act done by the accused has 'caused' the death of another person.
2. In Moti Singh v State of UP, SC held that the connection between the primary cause and the death should not be too remote.
3. In Joginder Singh v State of Punjab, SC held that for a culpable homicide it is necessary that there must be proximate causal link between act of accused and resulted death.
4. In Reva Ram v State of MP, SC held that if the death is caused due to intervening and supervening cause and such intervening or supervening cause of a death is a direct result of the injury inflicted by the accussed, he will nonetheless be liable for culpable homicide even if the death was not a direct result of his act.
5. Virsa Singh v State of Punjab – SC held that intervening and supervening cause should not be independent or unconnected with injury inflicted by the accused.

Mental Element in Culpable Homicide

Intention and knowledge are used as alternate ingredients to constitute the offence of culpable homicide. However, intention and knowledge are two different things.

As far as the offence of culpable homicide is concerned, there are three species or degrees of mens rea present:

1. an intention to cause death;
2. an intention to cause dangerous bodily injury as is likely to cause death (readwith explanation I and II), and
3. knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Intention and knowledge are used as alternate ingredients to constitute the offence of culpable homicide. However, intention and knowledge are two different things.

Intention – Intention is higher degree of mens rea. Intention in context of culpable homicide means expectation that the act of a person is likely to result in death. Here the knowledge of consequences exists alongwith desire to commit the same.

Knowledge – Knowledge is lesser degree of mens rea. Knowledge means consciousness or awareness of certain fact. Here the knowledge of consequences exists but the desire is absent.

Distinction between knowledge and intention becomes necessary as it is the degree of mens rea which determines the punishment to be imposed. Higher the degree of mens rea (intention) higher the punishment, lesser the degree of mens rea (knowledge) lesser the punishment.

Murder

Section 300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-

Secondly - If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or –

Thirdly -If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or –

Fourthly--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Section 300 deals with Culpable Homicide amounting to murder. In others words the section states that culpable homicide is murder in certain situations. This makes us come to two conclusions namely :

1. For an act to be classified as murder it must first meet all the conditions of culpable homicide i.e Section 299.
2. All acts of murder are culpable homicide, but all acts of culpable homicides are not murder. Culpable homicide is murder, if it is done with:

• intention to cause death; or
• intention to cause bodily injury knowing that the injury caused is likely to cause death, or
• intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
• knowledge that the act is:

(a) imminently dangerous that in all probability it will cause death or bodily injury which is likely to cause death, and

(b) done without any justification for incurring the risk of causing death or the injury.

Intentionally Causing Death

• The first clause of s 300 stipulates that when an act (including legal omission) is done with the intention of causing death, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder. Intention of the person can be gathered from the action of the person. Since intention is always a state of mind, it can be proved only by its external manifestations.
• Vasanth v State of Maharashtra (1998) - There was previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. The accused and the deceased were seen grappling with each other. Some persons who were present separated the two. The accused then went running to his jeep, drove it on the wrong side and towards the deceased in high speed, knocked him down and ran over him, killing him. The road on which the incident took place was a wide and deserted one. There was no reason or necessity for the accused to have driven the jeep in the wrong direction. The Supreme Court held that the accused had deliberately dashed his jeep against the accused and ran over him with the intention to cause his death.

Instances of Intention to Cause Death May Be :

1. setting fire to the deceased, after pouring kerosene on his body;
2. hanging someone by the neck till he dies;
3. Administering poison to someone;


• The first clause of Section 300, which is 'act done with intention of causing death', is identical to the first clause of Section 299, which is also 'doing an act with the intention of causing death'. Therefore, an act coming under cl (1) of s 300 will also fall under cl (1) of s 299, and in both instances, it will be culpable homicide amounting to murder.

Intentional Causing of Bodily Injury with Knowledge That It Will Cause Death

• The second clause covers instances where the offender has special knowledge about the victim’s condition and causes bodily injury in such a manner which causes death of the person.
• Mens rea contemplated under cl 2 of s 300 is twofold:
1. there must be an intention to cause bodily harm;
2. there must be 'knowledge' that death is the 'likely' result or consequence of such intended bodily injury.


• The second clause of s 299, which states 'with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death', is similar to cl 2 of s 300. But, in s 299, 'knowledge' that the injury is likely to cause death is not postulated as contemplated in cl (2) of s 300.
rn
• In Rajwant Singh v State of Kerala, to constitute murder substantive knowledge of the accused shall determine that the act fall under clause (2) of Section 300.
rn
• In R v Govinda, the court held that clause (2) of Section 300 contemplates a certain special knowledge regarding peculiar situation and health condition of particular victim that the intentional bodily injury is likely to be fatal.

Intentional Causing of Injury Sufficient to Cause Death

• The third clause of Section 300 consists of two parts :
1. there was an intention to inflict the particular injury;
2. the injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Here sufficiency means there is a very high probability of the injury resulting in death.

• Virsa Singh v State of Punjab – The Apex Court held that to bring a case under clause (3) of Section 300 :
1. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional. This first part is subjective to the offender and the subjective factor ends with that.
2. Injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This enquiry whether injury is sufficient to cause death or not is purely objective.
• Harjinder Singh v Delhi Administration - In this case, the accused was trying to assault one Dalip Singh and the deceased intervened. The accused finding himself one against two, took out the knife and stabbed the deceased. At that stage, the deceased happened to be in a crouching position presumably to intervene and separate the two. The knife pierced the upper portion of the left thigh. The stab wound was oblique and it cut the femoral artery and vein under the muscle, which are important main vessels of the body. The cutting of these vessels would result in great loss of blood and would lead to immediate death or death after a short duration. The Supreme Court held that from the evidence, it was not proved that it was the intention of the appellant to inflict that particular injury on that particular place. In view of this, it was held that cl (3) of s 300 would not apply.

Knowledge That Act Is So Imminently Dangerous So as to Cause Death or Such Bodily Injury as Is Likely to Cause Death

• The fourth clause covers the commission of those acts which are so imminently dangerous which when committed would cause death or bodily injury which would result in death of a person and that such an act is done without any lawful excuse.
• Under this clause, the act need not be directed at any particular individual nor need there be an intention to cause the death of any particular individual. It has to merely be a reckless act, which is imminently dangerous.
• The essential ingredients of this clause are:
1. the act must be imminently dangerous;
2. the person committing the act must have knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous;
3. that in all probability it will cause (a) death or (b) bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
4. such imminently dangerous act should be done without any reason or justification for running the risk of causing death or such injury.

Sehaj Ram v State of Haryana (1983) – Court clarified that Section 300 'fourthly' requires the proof that the accused incurred the risk of causing death or bodily injury 'without any excuse’. It conveys that culpable homicide based on knowledge does not amount to murder if the accused has an 'excuse' for 'incurring the risk‘.

Circumstances When Culpable Homicide Does Not Amount to Murder

Culpable homicide would not amount to murder in the following cases :

1. Culpable homicide would not amount to murder if it does not satisfy the additional requirements of the corresponding clause of Section 300.
2. Culpable homicide would not amount to murder if it falls under any of the five exceptions to Section 300.

Exceptions to Section 300 :

These exceptions are considered to be special exceptions and differ in nature from general exceptions. These exceptions to s 300, unlike the 'general exceptions', do not exonerate the wrongdoer and merely reduce the criminal liability of its perpetrator. Cases falling within exceptions to Sec. 300 are made punishable under Section 304.

The exceptions provided for under s 300 are:

1. Acts under grave and sudden provocation
2. When private Defense is exceeded in good faith
3. Act of Public Servant
4. When death is caused in sudden fight or heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
5. When death is caused of a person above eighteen years of age who voluntarily took the risk of death.

Grave and Sudden Provocation (Exception 1)

Culpable homicide will not be murder, if, the offender, on account of grave and sudden provocation, is deprived of his power of self-control and causes the death of a person. The person, whose death is caused, may be the person who gave the provocation or any other person by mistake or accident.

In order that this exception should apply following must be proved :

1. The provocation should be both grave and sudden - If the provocation is sudden but not grave, or grave but not sudden, then the offender cannot avail of the benefit of this exception.
2. The provocation was of such a nature that the offender was deprived of the power of self-control.

In KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court laid down the following postulates relating to grave and sudden provocation:

1. The test of 'grave and sudden' provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.
2. In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused, so as to bring his act within the first exception to section 300 , IPC.
3. The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence.
4. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.

This exception is itself subject to three exceptions:

1. The provocation should not have been sought for voluntarily by the offender, as an excuse for killing or doing any harm to any person.
2. The provocation is not as a result of an act done in obedience of law or by the act of a public servant in the lawful exercise of his powers.
3. The provocation is not a result of anything done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Few Other Important Cases on Grave and Sudden Provocation :

Hansa Singh v State of Punjab - The accused saw the deceased committing an act of sodomy on his son, which enraged him and he killed the deceased. It was held that it amounted to a grave and sudden provocation.

Bhura Ram v State of Rajasthan - The accused, accompanied with others, entered into the hut of the deceased. Apprehending danger to his life, the deceased fired at one of the companions of the accused and thereby caused his death. The accused then attacked the deceased with an axe on his head and killed him. During trial, he pleaded that the death of his companion caused grave and sudden provocation to him. The Supreme Court refused to accept the plea as the accused solicited the provocation. A killing under provocation sought by the accused cannot be covered by the exception

Dattu Genu Gaikwad v State of Maharashtra - The reason given by the accused for killing the deceased was the fact that he attempted to outrage the modesty of his wife a month back. In view of the long time interval, it was held that the plea of 'sudden and grave' provocation was not available.

Exceeding the Right of Private Defence (Exception 2)

As a general rule a person has a right of private defence of property and person. This right, under certain circumstances, even extends to the causing of death. This exception clause is in respect of cases where a person has exceeded his right of private defence and caused death of another.

Before this exception can be availed of, it has to be proved that the accused had the right of private defence as stipulated in s. 96-106, IPC. It is only after the existence of the right is established that the question whether the accused had exceeded his right to private defence will arise.

Nathan v State of Madras - the accused and his wife were in possession of some land which they had been cultivating for several years. They fell into arrears in respect of the lease amount due to the landlady. The landlord tried to evict the accused forcefully and tried to harvest the crop. So, the accused, in the exercise of his right to private defence of property, killed the deceased. The Supreme Court accepted the contention that the incident took place when the accused had exercised his lawful right of private defence against the property. However, since the deceased party was not armed with any deadly weapons and there could not have been any fear of death or grievous hurt on the part of the accused and his party, the right to private defence of property was limited to the extent of causing any harm other than death under s 104, IPC. It was therefore held that the accused exceeded his right of private defence and the case would fall under Exception 2 to s 300, IPC, and the offence committed by the accused was held to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Onkarnath Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh - The Supreme Court held that death caused by a person after his right to private defence ceases to exist falls outside the ambit of the exception.

Act of Public Servant (Exception 3)

This exception deals with situations where a public servant exceeds his lawful powers in the discharge of his duties and thereby causes death.

The Essential Ingredients of This Exception Are :

1. the offence must be committed by a public servant or by a person aiding a public servant;
2. the act alleged must have been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his official duties;
3. he should have exceeded the powers given to him by law;
4. the act should be done in good faith;
5. the public servant should have believed that his act was lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duties, and
6. he should not have borne any ill-will towards the person whose death was caused.

Sudden Fight (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.

Following Are the Requisites of This Exception :

1. the murder should have been committed without premeditation;
2. it should have been committed in a sudden fight;
3. it should have been committed in the heat of passion;
4. it should have been committed upon a sudden quarrel;
5. it should have been committed without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Narayanan Nair Raghavan Nair v State of Travancore - Merely sudden quarrel and the absence of premeditation does not make this exception applicable. It is also required to show that the accused has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner.

Death by Consent (Exception 5)

Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Following are the essentials to avail this exception :

1. the death was caused with the consent of the deceased;
2. the deceased was then above 18 years of age, and
3. the consent given was free and voluntary, and was not given through fear or misconception of facts.

Dasrath Paswan v State of Bihar - The accused, who was a student of the tenth class, failed in his examination thrice in succession. He was upset and frustrated by these failures and decided to put an end to his life and informed his wife, a literate girl of about 19 years of age. The wife thereupon requested him to kill her first and then kill himself. In pursuance of the pact, he killed his wife but was arrested before he could end his life. The court convicted him for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

 

Judex Tutorials

Judex Tutorials is a premier Judiciary coaching institute dedicated to prepare law students for judicial services exams. Whether you prefer online judicial classes, offline sessions, or need access to recorded lectures, we offer flexible preparation options. If you like our blog as class notes, follow and subscribe our social media platforms on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube as well.