@tanya-sharma
What is the difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide?
What is murder and culpable homicide?
Section 299 and Section 300 of Indian Penal Code deal with murder. All murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. Culpable Homicide is genus and murder is its species, thus, murder is a culpable homicide but all culpable homicide is not murder.
The word homicide is derived from Latin where homo means man while the meaning of cide is I cut. Thus, the killing of a man by a man is the meaning of homicide. Culpable homicide is punishable by law. Homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Culpable homicide is further divided into two categories:
- Culpable homicide amounting to murder.
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
What is the difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide?
INTRODUCTION OF MURDER
Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this Act, culpable homicide is considered as murder if: 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.
Illustrations
A shoots W with an intention of killing him. As a result, W dies in that consequence, murder is committed by A.
D intentionally gives a sword-cut to R that was sufficient to cause the death of anyone in the ordinary course of nature. As a consequence, R dies. Here, D is guilty of murder though he didn’t intend to cause R’s death.
What is the difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide?
INTRODUCTION OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
The word homicide is derived from two Latin words – homo and cido. Homo means human and cido means killing by a human. Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being. A homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes situations where a person who has caused the death of another cannot be blamed for his death. For example, in exercising the right of private defense or in other situations explained in Chapter IV of IPC covering General Exceptions. Unlawful homicide means where the killing of another human is not approved or justified by law. Culpable Homicide is in this category. Culpable means blame worthy. Thus, Culpable Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being in a blameworthy or criminal manner.
Section 299 of IPC defines Culpable Homicide as follows –
Section 299 – Who ever 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 that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of Culpable Homicide.
What is the difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide?
Illustrations –
A lays sticks and turf over a 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.
- A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of Culpable Homicide.
- A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal 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 to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1 – A person, who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring 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 skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3 – The causing of the death of 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.
What is the difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide?
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
- 1. Death of a human being is caused – It is required that the death of a human being is caused. However, it does not include the death of an unborn child unless any part of that child is brought forth.
- By doing an act – Death may be caused by any act for example, by poisoning or by hurting with a weapon. Here act includes even on omission of an act for which one is obligated by law to do. For example, if a doctor has a required injection in his hand and he still does not give it to the dying patient and if the patient dies, the doctor is responsible.
- Intention or Knowledge – There must be an intention of any of the following –
- Intention of causing death – The doer of the act must have intended to cause death. As seen in Illustration 1, the doer wanted or expected someone to die. It is important to note that intention of causing death does not necessarily mean intention of causing death of the person who actually died. If a person does an act with an intention of killing B but A is killed instead, he is still considered to have the intention.
- Intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – The intention of the offender may not have been to cause death but only an injury that is likely to cause the death of the injured. For example, A might intended only to hit on the skull of a person so as to make him unconscious, but the person dies. In this case, the intention of the person was only to cause an injury but the injury is such that it is likely to cause death of the person. Thus, he is guilty of Culpable Homicide. However, if A hits B with a broken glass. A did not know that B was hemophilic. B bleeds to death. A is not guilty of Culpable Homicide but only of grievous hurt because he neither had an intention to kill B nor he had any intention to cause any bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Or the act must have been done with the knowledge that such an act may cause death – When a person does an act which he knows that it has a high probability to cause death, he is responsible for the death which is caused as a result of the act. For example, A knows that loosening the brakes of a vehicle has a high probability of causing death of someone. If B rides such a bike and if he dies, A will be responsible for B’s death. In Jamaluddin’s case 1892, the accused, while exorcising a spirit from the body of a girl beat her so much that she died. They were held guilty of Culpable Homicide.
Negligence – Sometimes even negligence is considered as knowledge. In Kangla 1898, the accused struck a man whom he believed was not a human being but something supernatural. However, he did not take any steps to satisfy himself that the person was not a human being and was thus grossly negligent and was held guilty of Culpable Homicide.
What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER
Cause of confusion: The thin line is the intention behind the act. All murders are culpable homicide but the vice-versa is not true. Ever since the IPC was enacted, this distinction as to which case will fall under which category is a perennial question with which courts are often confronted. On a plain reading of the relevant provisions of the Code, it appears that the given cases can be conveniently classified into two categories but when it comes to actual application, the courts are often confronted with this dilemma. This confusion often emerges when it is difficult to interpret from the evidence whether the intention was to cause merely bodily injury which would not make out an offence of murder or there was a clear intention to kill the victim making out a clear case of an offence of murder. The most confusing aspect is ‘intention’ as in both the provisions the intention is to cause death. Hence, you have to consider the degree of intention of offenders. If the person is killed in cold-blood or with planning then it is murder because the intention to kill is in high degree and not out of sudden rage or provocation. On other hand, if the victim is killed without pre-planning, in sudden fight or in sudden anger because of somebody’s provocation or instigation, then such a death is called culpable homicide. Hence, whether the act done is culpable homicide or murder is a question of fact.
Distinguishing between the two: The distinction between the two was aptly set forth by Sarkaria J., in State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya,((1976) 4 SCC 382) “In the scheme of the Penal Code, ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ its specie. All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice versa. Speaking generally ‘culpable homicide’ sans ‘special characteristics of murder’ is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is what may be called, culpable homicide of first degree, this is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in section 300 as ‘murder’. The second may be termed as ‘culpable homicide of the second degree’. This is punishable under the 1st part of Section 304. Then, there is ‘culpable homicide of the third degree’. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades, punishable under Part II of Section 304.”
EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 300 OF IPC WHERE CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT CONSIDERED AS MURDER
Clauses 1-4 of Section 300 provide the essential ingredients, wherein culpable homicide amounts to murder. Section 300 after laying down the cases in which culpable homicide becomes murder, states certain exceptional situations under which, if murder is committed, it is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, IPC and not under section 302, IPC.
The exceptions are: Grave and sudden provocation Private defense Exercise of legal power without premeditation in sudden fight and Consent in case of passive euthanasia.
If the offender is deprived of the power of self-control due to sudden and grave provocation, and his act causes the death of the person who provoked or death of any other person by accident or mistake. This exception is subject to a certain proviso: That the provocation is not sought or is voluntarily provoked by the offender to be used as an excuse for killing or causing any harm to the person.
That the provocation is not given by anything that is done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant while exercising the powers lawfully of a public servant. That the provocation is not done while doing any lawful exercise of the right of private defense.
ILLUSTRATION
A is given grave and sudden provocation by C. A fire at C as a result of this provocation. A didn’t intend or have knowledge that his act is likely to kill C, who was out of A’s sight. A kills C. A is not liable to murder but is liable to culpable homicide.
CULPABLE HOMICIDE IN CASE OF PUBLIC SERVANT
The act is done by a public servant who is acting to promote public justice. If the public servant commits an act which is necessary to discharge his duty as is done in good faith and he believes it to be lawful.
What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?
ILLUSTRATION
If the police officer goes to arrest a person, the person tries to run away and during that incident, if the police officer shoots the person, the police officer will not be guilty of murder.
DAKHI SINGH V. STATE, 1955 in this case the appellant was the constable of Railway Protection Force, while he was on duty; he killed a fireman unintentionally, while he was firing bullet shots to catch the thief. The constable was entitled to benefit under this section.
SUDDEN FIGHT/RAGE
The sudden fight is when the fight is unexpected or premeditated. Both the parties don’t have any intention to kill or cause the death of another. The fact that which party had assaulted or offered a provocation first is not important.
RADHEY SHYAM AND ANR. V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2018
In this case the appellant was extremely angry when he got to know that his calf had come to the deceased place. The appellant started abusing the deceased, when the latter tried to stop him, the appellant fired at the deceased. The deceased was unarmed at that time, thus, the appellant had an intention to kill the deceased, and hence, he was held liable to murder.
What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?
PUNISHMENT
PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER – SECTION 302, IPC Whoever commits murder shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE – SECTION 304, IPC Culpable homicide is not murder if it falls under any one of the five exceptions given under Section 300. For culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Section 304 of IPC describes the punishments as: Imprisonment for life or Imprisonment for either description of a term extending up to ten years and/or Fine.
MEANING OF EXPRESSION “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT”
For a doubt to stand in the way of conviction of guilt it must be a real doubt and a reasonable doubt. If the data leaves the mind of the trial judge in doubt, the decision must be against the party having the burden of persuasion. If the mind of the adjudication tribunal is evenly balanced as to whether or not the accused is guilty, it is its duty to acquit the accused.
EXAMINING RAREST OF THE RARE CASE IN IMPOSING DEATH PENALTY
Rarest of the rare case is the principle enshrined in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) (2 SCC 684) which limits the vast discretion of the court in imposing death penalty. Death as a highest punishment was removed from being a general rule to being awarded only in exceptional circumstances and that too after recording the special reason for imposing the highest punishment which cannot be reverted under any circumstance after its execution. The phrase “rarest of the rare” case still remains to be defined while the concern for human life, the norms of a civilised society and the need to reform the criminal has engaged the attention of the courts. The sentence of death has to be based on the action of the criminal rather than the crime committed. The doctrine of proportionality of sentence via-a-via the crim.
What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, there is a thin line between Murder and Culpable Homicide. The courts have time and again taken efforts to differentiate between the two offences the end result of the two being same, intention behind the offence being the important factor of consideration. The entire case of the prosecution can be based on a single point i.e. “intention” and in the same way the entire case of the prosecution can be destroyed by the defense by proving “no intention”, the victim and the offender has been the greatest concern of the courts.
