The Author, Apoorva Goel is a LL.M student from Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.
Introduction
The killing of a human being by another human being is termed as homicide. When such homicide falls under general exceptions under Section 76-106 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 then it is a lawful homicide i.e. it is excusable and justified. Unlawful homicides are;
- Murder u/s 300 IPC;
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s 299 and exceptions of section 300 of IPC; and,
- Transferred Intent; causing the death of the person other than the one whose death was actually intended amounts to culpable homicide u/s 301.
- Homicide by rash and negligent acts u/s 304A.
- Dowry death u/s 304 B
- Suicide u/s 305,306,309
- Attempt to murder u/s 307
- Attempt to culpable homicide u/s 308.
A homicide can fall under any of the aforementioned heads according to the degree of intention, knowledge, recklessness, etc. A crime consists of two elements one is men's rea which is the mental element or the state of mind i.e. the person has intentionally or knowingly done a prohibited act, thus, there is a presence of guilty mind and the other is actus reus which is the physical act done to commit a crime. In some offences presence of men's rea is not required like waging war, sedition, kidnapping, counterfeiting coins, and offences where strict liability is imposed by the statute.
This article focuses on clearing many doubts regarding the thin line differences between Murder and Culpable homicide. It is started from the basic knowledge about the mental element of crime which will further help in understanding the contrast better.
Difference between Intention, Knowledge, Reason to Believe, and Negligence
Before distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder; let’s discuss the mental element of crime and for that, one must know the difference between Intention, Knowledge, Reason to Believe, Rashness, and Negligence.
- Intention: Motive is the purpose for which the act is done and it prompts a man to form an intention. It is a clue to the intention. Intention means to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach the desired objective.
- Knowledge: It denotes a conscious awareness of certain facts in which the consequences of the act are probable but there is no desired result by the accused but he didn’t care about the consequences.
Illustration: X sets fire to an inhabited house to commit theft and thus causes the death of a child sleeping inside. Here, X may not have intended to cause death as his purpose is to commit theft not murder but he knew that death can be a probable consequence and he didn’t care for it. Thus, he only has the knowledge and not the intention to kill the child.
- Reason to believe: A person has a reason to believe when he is sure about the consequences of his act but he did not desire the result and didn’t care about the consequences.
- Rashness: It means that the consequences of the act are probable and the person did not desire the result and even cared about the consequences and hopes that such action should not have happened. Here, the person believes that he has taken the precaution but he hasn’t.
- Negligence: It occurs when the person should have taken the precautions but he hasn’t.
Difference between murder and culpable homicide
Culpable homicide is a wider offence than murder. Thus, “all murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders”. Murder can be said to be an aggravated form of culpable homicide.
Let’s compare all the clauses of Section 299 with Section 300.
- Clause 1 of Section 299 says “whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death”[i]
It is immaterial if the person whom the accused intended to kill was not killed but some other person is killed, the offence is complete as soon as any person is killed.
The clause “firstly” of section 300 says “ Except in hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death”[ii].
By comparing the above two provisions one can infer that if a death is caused even with intention but falls under any of the exceptions to Section 300 then it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Exceptions to Section 300
- Exception 1:Grave and sudden Provocation
When the offender is deprived of the power of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation caused by the death of a person by mistake or accident. Further, such provocation must come from the person who has been killed and it must not be voluntarily caused by the offender and used as an excuse to cause death. One cannot take this defence against a public servant lawfully exercising his powers or any person exercising his right to private defence.
Whether the provocation was Grave and sudden depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, it is a question of fact and the court applies an objective test called the reasonable man’s test i.e. whether a reasonable man in the circumstances of a particular case would have committed the offence under grave and sudden provocation.
- Exception 2:Exceeding right of private defence
If the offender in good faith exercises his right of private defence to save his body or property or other person’s body or property and causes the death of the person against whom he was exercising his right to private defence then it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder provided the act was not planned or without any intention to do more harm than necessary.
- Exception 3: Exercise of legal power
Under this exception, the person accused must be a public servant or aiding a public servant for the expansion of public justice and he must believe in good faith that the act that resulted in the death was lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duties. Also, he must not have any ill will towards the deceased.
- Exception 4: Sudden quarrel
If death is caused without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender taking any undue advantage or acted cruelly or unusually. Then, such death is not murder but a culpable homicide. It is not material which party gave the provocation or assaulted first.
In the case of Ananta Kamilya Vs State of West Bengal[iii] the Supreme Court held that after examining the records and findings by the learned Trial Court and the High Court, it can be said that the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment as the accused did not carry any weapon when he arrived at the place of incident. The accused took the lathi lying there and gave a blow on the head of the deceased only after some altercation and on the spur of the moment. This marks the absence of intention or premeditation on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. Therefore, the case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Further, the court set aside his conviction under section 302 IPC and held that according to the facts and circumstances of the case the offence committed by the accused falls under part 1 of Section 304.
- Exception 5: Death by consent
A person 18 or above, consents to suffer death or takes risks of death then it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Clause 2 of Section 299 says that “whoever causes death intending to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death”[iv] and;
The clause “thirdly” of Section 300 lays down that if “death is caused to cause bodily injury to any person and such bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death ”[v].
From Clause 2 of section 299, it can be inferred that the main ingredient is the intention to cause such bodily injury which is probable to cause death, thus, death may or may not be caused to the person. Here, death itself was not intended the person just cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause death.
For eg., A thief beaten by a mob died due to the causation of such bodily injury which was likely to cause his death. The mob did not intend to kill him but they gave him such injuries which resulted in his death. Thus, this is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
From Clause “thirdly” of Section 300 it can be interpreted that death was caused with the intention to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries inflicted must be intentional and not accidental.
There is no need for the accused to have knowledge that whether the injury he intended to cause is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused intentionally inflicted such injuries which were sufficient to kill him.
Under this, it is immaterial whether the blow given was small or big, he cannot say, it was just a slap or a single blow, and the accused falling under this clause should take the defence that he never intended to cause such bodily injury in the first place.
In the case of Arun Raj v. Union of India[vi], the Apex Court held that the nature of the weapon used and vital part of the body where the blow was given, prove beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. Further, once these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow or multiple blows.
Thus, clause “thirdly” of section 300 and clause 2 of section 299 differs in terms of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. The word “likely” in clause (2)of Section 299 conveys the probability not the possibility of occurrence of death.
In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kanhaiya Lal,[vii] the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s order and upheld the trial Court’s decision. The Court observed that the reason given by the High Court that there was no repeated injury can hardly be a ground to convert the conviction from section 302 to Part I of section 304. A single blow on the vital part of the body, like the head by a deadly weapon-axe used with force was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the offence falls under clause thirdly of Section 300. Further, the Court held that merely because the quarrel took place earlier and not immediately before or at the time of the commission of the offence, it cannot be said that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased.
- Clause 3 of Section 299 lays down that “whoever causes death with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits culpable homicide”[viii].Under this, the offender only has knowledge. It denotes a conscious awareness of certain facts in which the consequences of the act are probable but there is no desired result by the accused but he didn’t care about the consequences. The probability of death is less.
The clause “fourthly” of Section 300 says that “if the offender knows that his act is so imminently dangerous that it will in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death without any excuse of incurring the risk of death.”[ix] Here, Intention is not an important ingredient and the main ingredient is that the person doing the act has the knowledge that he is doing an imminently dangerous act which has higher chances to cause death or a bodily injury which will result in death. It requires a high degree of knowledge of causing death.
In the case of Suraj Jagannath Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra[x] it was observed by the Apex Court that the manner in which the accused poured the kerosene on the deceased and the way he came from behind her and threw a match stick and set her on fire when she was trying to run away from the room to save her; the death of the deceased is murder and fall under clause fourthly of Section 300 not under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
- Explanation 1 of section 299 says that, when a person causes bodily injury to a person who is having a disorder, disease, infirmity etc. which accelerated his death then it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the person knew about such disease or disorder; else it will be grievous hurt u/s 320. Here, the accused only has the knowledge and no intention.
The clause “secondly” of Section 300 says that if an act is done with both intention and knowledge and such bodily injury caused the death of such person then that is murder.
For eg. If a person inflicts a violent blow on the head of the victim with a lethal weapon then it must be presumed that he had the intention to cause such injury which he knows, to be likely to cause the death of the victim.
Punishments
Murder is the gravest form of culpable homicide, it is the culpable homicide of first degree and is punishable under section 302.
Section 302 imposes punishment of death or imprisonment for life, and also fine. The death penalty is awarded only in the rarest of rare cases; else, the Court always gives the smallest punishment possible.
Section 304 talks about the punishment for culpable homicide. It contains two parts, the first part lays down punishment for the culpable homicide of second degree; which is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine.
If the offence falls under clause 2 of Section 299 or if the offence falls under clauses 1,2,3 of Section 300 but attracts any of the five exceptions then the punishment is to be given under part -1 of section 304.
The second part provides for imprisonment for 10 years or a fine or both. An offence under it is the culpable homicide of third-degree which has the lowest punishment. If an offence falls under Clause 3 of Section 299 or Clause 4 of Section 300 if it attracts exception to Section 300 then the punishment is to be given under the second part of Section 304, IPC.
In the case of Reg. v. Govinda[xi] , the accused had hit his wife and fall on the ground, kept his knee on her chest and started giving 2 to 3 violent blows with the closed fist on her face. Due to this, there was extraversion of blood on her brain and afterwards, she died The Court held that the act was not committed with the intention of causing death and the bodily injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In the recent case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand[xii] in a celebratory gunfire 2 people succumbed to their injuries. The Court held the accused to be guilty under clause 3 of Section 299 and punished him under part II of Section 304 as despite having no intention to kill anyone it can be proved from the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused was carrying a loaded gun in public without any due care and he does have knowledge that his act can likely cause death.
Conclusion
According to Sir James Stephen, the weakest part of the code is the difference between Section 299 and Section 300 as they have a close resemblance with each other and sometimes it’s difficult to differentiate between them as death is common to both of them. The disparity between them is real though very fine as it is the probability of death and the presence of intention and knowledge which differentiates murder from culpable homicide. The safest approach in interpreting the difference between murder and culpable homicide is to focus on the keywords used in various clauses of these sections.
References:
[i] The Indian Penal Code ,1860,(45 of 1860),s299.
[ii] The Indian Penal Code ,1860,(45 of 1860),s300(1).
[iii] AIR 2020 SC 315.
[iv] Supra note 1,s299.
[v] The Indian Penal Code ,1860,(45 of 1860),s300(3).
[vi] (2010) 6 SCC 457.
[vii] (2019) 5 SCC 639.
[viii] Supra note 1,s299.
[ix] The Indian Penal Code ,1860,(45 of 1860),s300(4).
[x] (2020) 2 SCC 693.
[xi] 1877 ILR 1 Bom 342.
[xii] AIR 2020
