Culpable homicide and murder

Culpable homicide and murder

 

Abstract

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and culpable homicide amounting to murder are offenses against the human body. Chapter 16 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the offenses against the human body. In this article, culpable homicide which is covered in section 299, and murder which is covered in section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, will be covered. Punishment for murder is given under section 302 and punishment for culpable homicide is given under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. When one human being kills another human being then it is called culpable homicide, the killing consists of bodily injury, intention, and knowledge, these are the main ingredients of culpable homicide. Now, what is murder? Murder is also the killing of one human being by another, it also has these three ingredients, intention, knowledge, and bodily injury, then what is the difference between culpable homicide and murder? Why are these defined under two different sections of the IPC, 1860? There is no difference between the two, both are the same, the only difference between them is the degree of risk to human life. Differences will be further discussed in detail in this article. Many cases are there about murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, some of them will be covered in this article. Culpable homicide and murder are two very important topics of the Indian Penal Code, of 1860. As a law student, my personal opinion of this particular topic is that it covers the base of the IPC, if a law student clearly understands every concept of this topic, it gets really interesting. One of the reasons this topic is intriguing for a law student is that it is related to practical life, well every topic of law is related to practical life, but this is the most intense topic for an ordinary human being which is why it is interesting to study, especially for the students who are thinking of pursuing criminal law as their career. In the topic of culpable homicide and murder, the most asked question is about the difference between them, the difference between the two is very minute and that is why it has become a separate topic in the topic of culpable homicide and murder, as stated above, the difference is the degree of risk to human life but it is only a gist of the differences which are given in the definitions itself, the thing is that they have to be found, they cannot come up with one read, a person won’t even recognize any difference in one read, for detailed differences between the two to be known, an important case law has to be read that is Reg v. Govinda, in this case, the difference between culpable homicide and murder is beautifully observed by justice R.F. Mactter.

Culpable homicide

Section 299 

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 offense of culpable homicide.

To understand culpable homicide, first one must know the meaning of culpable homicide which is the killing of a human being by another, it is as simple as it looks but what makes it complicated is its ingredients, culpable homicide has three ingredients which are:-

• Intention 
• Bodily injury
• Knowledge 

There are three explanations to get the concept of these three ingredients clearly, which are as follows:-

1. When a person causes such bodily injury to another person, who is suffering from any disease, disorder, or bodily infirmity, and that person dies as a consequence of that bodily injury then it is called culpable homicide.

This explanation is clear, say if a person is suffering from diabetes and some other person gives him a hard blow in an argument between them, he had no knowledge whatsoever that the other one is suffering from diabetes and that person dies as a consequence of that blow then it is culpable homicide although there was no intention on the part of the person who gave the blow. Here in this example, this can be seen that there was bodily injury but no intention and knowledge that the person would die, and the bodily injury caused death, hence it is culpable homicide. Now comes the second explanation.

2. When one person causes such bodily injury to another, due to which the other one dies, then such person has killed the other one it is immaterial to take this defense that the death could have been prevented if the person who died could gotten proper medical care and treatment.

In this explanation, it has been established that if a person inflicting any bodily injury to another causes that person’s death then it is culpable homicide, it has been told that if the death could have been prevented by proper medical treatment then it would still be a culpable homicide because death has already been caused and ‘could have been prevented’ is just an assumption, the person has already died then why the killer should get an opportunity to escape punishment on just a mere assumption that the death could have been prevented if there was a proper medical treatment given to the person who died as a consequence of that inflicted bodily injury by the killer.

3. If a child has been killed in the mother’s womb then it is not culpable homicide but if any part of the child’s body has been brought forth even though the child has not breathed then it amounts to culpable homicide.

This explanation says that killing a child in a mother’s womb is not culpable homicide but if any part is brought out and at that time if the child is killed, even only a finger has been brought forth, it has not even breathed then too it is culpable homicide. In my opinion, this explanation should be altered it should simply be like killing a child in a mother’s womb is culpable homicide because it seems a little illogical that this explanation says ‘ if any part is brought forth’ and ‘if it has not breathed’, if it has not breathed but any part is brought forth it means its not considered living yet then why does it matter that any part should be brought forth to consider it as culpable homicide if it has not even breathed yet, it is still in the womb and it is not considered as a living being then it should not be culpable homicide until it has fully breathed, it should not matter if any part of the child has come out. In my opinion, a child in the womb is a living child, it’s just that it has not come out but it is a living child and its killing should be culpable homicide because it is a part of its mother before coming out.

Murder 

Section 300

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, every culpable homicide is murder. Murder has three ingredients:- 

• Intention 
• Bodily injury
• Knowledge 

It has four explanations, which are as follows:-

1. An act is done to cause death.
2. An act is done to cause any bodily injury which is likely to cause death.
3. An act is done with the knowledge that it is so eminently dangerous that in all probability death will be caused.
4. When a bodily injury is caused which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Murder has five exceptions to it, which are:-

1. Grave and sudden provocation – when a person is provoked and he kills as a consequence of that provocation then it is not murder but culpable homicide, but there is one catch that the act of killing should be immediate not after some hours have passed. These exceptions have some provisions, which are:-

• it shall not be self provocation which means when a person has not been provoked by anyone but by his thinking or hate for anyone he has been provoked then it is self provocation.
• Provocation shall not be against a public servant who is exercising his lawful duty, say if he is legally arresting any person and if that person gets provoked by that and kills the officer then it will amount to murder.
• Against a person who is exercising his right to private defense, when a person is exercising his right of private defense and a person kills him by being provoked then it is murder.

2. Right to private defense – when a person is exercising his right of private defense and during the exercise of this right he kills someone then it does not amount to murder but culpable homicide.
3. Public servant – when a public servant while doing his lawful duty kills someone out of necessity and public welfare then it is not murder but culpable homicide.
4. Heat of the moment – when there is a fight between two persons and the fight increases to such an extent that one of them is killed and there was no pre-plan to kill nor any intention by the other one then it is not murder but culpable homicide.
5. Consent – when a person who is above 18 years of age gives his consent to die then it is not murder but only culpable homicide.

Case laws 

• Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar

In this case, the accused was a class 10th student, he had failed three times in class 10th and was depressed, he was thinking of killing himself, he told all this to his wife who was 19 years old, after listening to all this she told him to kill her first and then to kill himself. First, the husband killed his wife and was about to hang himself but before that, the police came and he was arrested. First, he was given punishment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but there was disagreement in this decision, after much discussion he was held liable under section 304 which is punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This decision was taken because this case comes under exception number 5 of section 300 which is when someone who is above 18 years of age gives their consent to die then it is not murder. In this case, the wife gave her free consent, she was not forced, compelled, under intoxication, or any other kind of illusion, she gave her consent out of love and fear of living alone after her husband killed himself. Looking at all these circumstances it is not murder, the husband also did not have any intention to kill her, he was going to kill himself afterward, he just obeyed her decision to die together. It was their suicide pact and cannot be considered murder but it was only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

K.M. Nanavati was a second-in-command navy officer, he had a wife and three children. Nanavati and his wife met Ahuja and his sister through some common friends. Because of the nature of Nanavati’s job, he often had to stay out of town, during this period his wife and Ahuja had an affair, and when he came back his wife confessed everything to him, he was devastated but was calmed down by his wife, in the evening he took his wife and children to the movies and told them that he will pick them up after the movie ends, after that, he went to the ship and took a gun. After taking the gun he went to Ahuja’s house, Ahuja just comes out of the shower, and Nanavati entered his room, and shot him, 4 shots were heard, and all this happened within a minute ( it was confirmed by Ahuja’s servant). Navati’s lawyers were taking the defense of grave and sudden provocation which is exception number one of section 300, taking this defense was invalid because Nanavati had enough time to calm down, for grave and sudden provocation to be valid, the killing should have happened immediately after one is provoked. This case first went to the sessions court in which the jury gave an unreasonable judgement holding Nanavati not liable then it went to the high court which said that Nanavati was liable for murder and the exception of grave and sudden provocation does not apply here.

• Kusa Majhi v. State of Orissa

In this case, the mother of the accused did not let him go fishing with the neighbors, the son got angry at this, and gave blows on the shoulder of his mother with an axe, because of the blows heavy bleeding was there and the mother died instantly. In this case, it was held that this was not murder but culpable homicide. The accused gave blows but there was no intention to kill, the blows were given in anger, it happened in the heat of the moment, and the accused had no pre-plan to kill his mother, so it cannot be said to have been murder, it was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

• Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia

In this case, there was a husband and a wife, they had a child who was not more than a year old. The husband was violent to her wife and she was unhappy. Hence, she ran away with the child, she went a few kilometers away and hid, suddenly she heard her husband coming who was searching for her, because of panic she jumped into the lake with her child, that was in front of her. It was held that she was not liable for the murder of her child because she had no intention of killing, out of panic she jumped, although she knew, at that time her mind couldn’t comprehend it. It was not murder but culpable homicide.

The difference between culpable homicide and murder 

This is the most asked question when it comes to culpable homicide and murder. This has been made very clear in the case of Reg v Govinda, in this article, the difference will be told in only four points, here it is:- 

• Reg v. Govinda

By not getting too much into facts we will directly jump to the differences, facts in short, a husband kicked his wife, and she fell on the ground, and after that, he struck his foot on her chest and gave her blows, because of the blows she died, justice R.F. Mactter held that it was not murder but culpable homicide and sentenced the accused for seven years of imprisonment, during this case, justice Mactter pointed out major differences in murder and culpable homicide, these are:- 

• When there is the intention to kill, it is always murder.
• When the bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature then it is murder. Still, when the bodily injury is likely to cause death then it is culpable homicide.
• When there is knowledge that the act that is being done is so eminently dangerous that in all probability death will be caused then it is murder and if there is knowledge that death will likely be caused by a certain act then it is culpable homicide.
• When there is degree of risk to human life is higher then it is murder but when the degree of risk to human life is less then it is culpable homicide.

Punishment for murder 

Section 302 of the IPC gives punishment for murder which is death or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.

Punishment for culpable homicide 

Section 304 of IPC provides for the punishment for culpable homicide, it is given in two parts, which are:-

• With intention – Imprisonment of either description which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine.
• With knowledge but without intention – Imprisonment which may extend to 10 years or fine or with both.

Conclusion 

Culpable homicide and murder both look the same when you read about them, but are very different if they go into detail. They are like two faces of a coin. The main element in both of them is someone dying, in culpable homicide as well as in murder, the three elements are present which are bodily injury, intention, and knowledge, but the difference is in the interpretation of these three elements as discussed in the case of Reg v. Govinda. Murder has exceptions to it but culpable homicide does not, the punishment for culpable homicide is defined with two conditions which are with intention and without intention but with knowledge but the punishment for murder is straightforward. Murder has a greater degree of risk to human life when it comes to killing when compared to culpable homicide. 

Author: Lagan Singh, New Law College Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune (Maharashtra)