Murder and Culpable Homicide under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

People knife stabbing stab kill

Deergh Uppal

The word ‘murder’ comes from the Germanic word “morth” which means “secret murder.” Murder happens when one person is killed by another person or a group of people with the premeditated intent to end the victim’s life. A crime is not considered ‘murder’ unless it involves an act that meets the criteria of culpable homicide as defined by the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter as IPC). Many homicides are culpable, but not all homicides are murders. Murder is dealt with in sections 299 and 300 of the IPC.

Homicide is said to have been originated from Latin, where “homo” means “man” and “cida” means to “kill”. As a result, homicide refers to the killing of a man by another man. Homicide is either lawful or unlawful.

Murder

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code defines murder as:

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.”

According to this Act, culpable homicide is seen as murder if the following conditions are met:

  • The act is committed with an intention to cause death.
  • The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender has knowledge that it would result in death.
  • The person has the knowledge that his act is dangerous and would cause death or bodily injury but still commits the act, this would amount to murder.

Ingredients of Murder

  • Causing death: There should be an intention of causing death,
  • Doing an act: There should be an intention to cause such bodily injury that is likely to cause death, or
  • The act must be done with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause the death of another.

Illustration

  • Suppose there is a brawl between 2 neighbors ‘A’ & ‘B’, due to this A shoots B and this causes the death of B. In this case A will be convicted for murder
  • ‘A’ stabs ‘C’ knowing that he has an underlying disease, and this stab may kill him but, still does so in this scenario A has committed murder. In a different case in which A did not knew about C’s underlying situation and stabs him in a way which would not kill a normal human with the intent of bodily damage only then in this case even if C dies A will not be liable for murder

Attempt to murder

An attempt to murder is covered by section 307 of the IPC. Anyone who commits an act with the intent or knowledge of causing the death of another individual is guilty of murder and faces a sentence of up to ten years in prison and a fine; if the act causes harm to another person, the offender faces a sentence of life imprisonment or any other punishment determined by the court.

Illustrations

  • Suppose a kidnapper leaves a kid in a desert with the intention to kill him/her, even though it will not ensure the death of the kid the kidnapper will be liable in this section
  • Suppose A loads a pistol with the intent to kill Y. A is yet to commit the crime, When A shoots Y then only will A come in the ambit of this section even if the shooting ensures Y’s death. The moment A fired his pistol irrespective weather the victim lives or not A will come in the ambit of this law.

Landmark Judgments

Jag Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1],

In this case, a murder occurred after the 1973 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which removed the death penalty as a mandatory punishment for murder was left up to the Court’s discretion. The reasons for the death penalty’s constitutionality were based on the fact that the courts had a broad discretionary power and there were no rules or requirements. It was determined that it was in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life was not included in Article 19, and that death should not be considered unfair or contrary to public policy because it was a punishment that existed long before the statute was enacted, and the legislature was presumed to be certain of its existence. Since it was not repealed, it is safe to say that the legislature did not consider it unfair.

In cases requiring judicial discretion, Clause 14 will be difficult to enforce because, each case would be special in terms of facts and circumstances. The power granted to courts in determining whether or not to sentence anyone to death and hence cannot be defined as unguided. The Code of Criminal Practice sets out the specifics of whether a death penalty is enforced and violating the law’s guidelines cannot be considered as unconstitutional.

Triveniben v. State of Gujarat and Ors.[2]

The appellant was sentenced to death in this case. He was the prime suspect in a plot to kill many people by impersonating a customs officer and abducting them under the guise of an interrogating officer in order to rob and then murder them. The accused was placed in solitary confinement for eight years. Article 21 was reportedly broken due to a delay in execution, according to the appeal. It was decided that the sentencing should be carried out according to legal procedures. When an execution is postponed for an extended period of time, regardless of the reason, it has a dehumanizing effect, which breaches Article 21 by unjustly depriving a citizen of his or her life and liberty. An inmate is entitled to get a death sentence quashed if there is a delay of more than two years.

Culpable Homicide

Culpable homicide is a form of unlawful homicide whose provisions are given under IPC. There are two categories of culpable homicides, according to the law:

  • Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder 
  • Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder

Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder

It is often referred to as culpable homicide, and it is covered by Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code 1862, which states:

Anyone will be charged with culpable homicide if he/she commits an act with the intent of causing death or causing bodily harm that is likely to cause death, or if he knows that his act will likely cause death.

Conditions

Following the bifurcation of the term, will conclude the three requirements that must be met in order to activate Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. The points are:

  • The intention of causing death.
  • The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • With the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death

Case Law

In the case of Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa[3] it was decided that Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is the genus and Section 300 is the animal. As a result, there are no specific provisions concerned with culpable homicide that does not equate to murder instead, Section 300 of the IPC describes murder.

Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder

Murder, as it is commonly known, falls under the purview of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1862, which states:

If the act is done with the intent of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death of the person, or if the inflicted bodily injury is sufficient enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if there is knowledge that the act is so fatal that it will in all probability cause death, it is culpable homicide.

Conditions

Following the bifurcation of the term, we arrive at four requirements that must be met in order to activate Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The points are:

  • The intention of causing death.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Case Laws

This is not a modern law; it dates from the British period. In the case of R. v Latimer[4] a man got into a fight and, in order to defeat the man, he pulled out his belt and struck it, but it rebounded and hit a woman, injuring her badly. According to the court:

Despite the fact that the defendant has no intention of injuring the victim, he is to be held responsible for her injury. The mens rea has shifted from the guy he was about to strike with his belt to the prostitute.

Distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder

The definitions of culpable homicide and murder, according to Sir James Stephen, are the weakest aspect of the code because they are represented in ways that are somewhat similar to each other, and it can be difficult to differentiate between the two because the cause of death is the same in both. The distinction between culpable and non-culpable homicides, on the other hand, is true, although subtle, and is dependent on the motive and intelligence involved in these murders. The true differentiation is in the degree, with the former having a greater aim or understanding of the fatal consequences than the latter.

Melvil J. clarified the distinction between sections 299 and 300 in Reg. vs Govinda[5] in this case, the accused knocked his wife down, put one knee on her chest, and struck her in the face with a closed fist, causing extraversion of blood on the brain, and she died as a result, either on the spot or rather soon after, despite the fact that there was no intent to cause death and the bodily injury not being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The perpetrator was found guilty of culpable homicide that did not amount to murder.

Conclusion

The line between murder and culpable homicide is razor thin. The courts have tried time and time again to distinguish between the two offences, including the fact that the final outcome is the same, with the motive behind the crime being the most relevant thing to remember. The prosecution’s entire case can be built around a single point, namely “purpose”, and the defense can demolish the prosecution’s entire case by proving “no intention”.

  1. Jag Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1972 AIR 947
  2. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat and Ors, 1989 AIR 1335
  3. Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997CriLJ 2204)
  4. R. v Latimer (18861 S.C.R. 217)
  5. Reg. vs Govinda [1876 ILR Bom 342]

References:

Related Post