General: Following are the main offences affecting human life:
a) Culpable homicide.
b) Murder Culpable homicide.
Culpable homicide : 1. Culpable homicide is called manslaughter under English law. Under US Law it is called second degree murder. 2. Under Us law, murder is called first degree murder. 3. Culpable homicide has following two kinds :
a) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.(Culpable homicide Simplicitor) b) Culpable homicide amounting to murder (Murder) 4. Both in Culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) and in murder, death of a human being takes place. The degree of criminality is different in the two offences. 5. Culpable homicide as defined in Sec. 299 & Sec. 300 specifies the additional requirements which aggravate culpable homicide to make it a murder. 6. Every murder is primarily a culpable homicide. In fact, murder is only a species of culpable homicide, which is a genus. 7. Sir Tames Stephan has criticized the definitions of the offences-culpable homicide and the murder. He is of the view that the definitions are not well drawn. 8. These definitions are the weakest part of the code. (Homo-man, cido- cut) 9. a) Culpable homicide is defined u/s 299 and is punishable u/s304 of the code. b) Murder is defined u/s300. Sec. 300is to be read with Sec. 299. Murder is punishable u/s302 IPC.
10. 80th culpable homicide and murder are cognizable, non bailable and non compoundable. 80th are exclusively triable by court of session.
Definition of 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 offence of culpable homicide. From the analysis of Sec. 299, following essential elements of culpable homicide are made out:
a) The accused must have committed some act.
b) The act must have been committed with any of the following intentions or knowledge:
i) Intention to cause death. ii) Intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause iii) Knowledge that the death is likely to be caused thereby.
c) The victim must have died in consequence of the act of the accused person. Death caused by an act done with the intention of causing death constitutes culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide. It constitutes murder. (If the case does not fall under any of the exceptions to Sec. 300).
Illustration: (a) of Bare Act: A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death or with the knowledge that the 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. Death resulting from an act done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death constitutes culpable homicide in the second degree. It is not invariably murder. It would be murder if it satisfies the requirements of clause II or III to sec. 300. (If the case does not fall in any of the exceptions to Sec. 300)
Illustration: (b) of Bare Act: A knows Z to be behind a bush. 8 does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely cause's death, induces8 to fire at the bush. 8 fires and kills Z. Here 8 may be guilty of no offence but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. Death caused by an act done with the knowledge that death was likely to be caused thereby constitutes culpable homicide of third degree. This culpable homicide is also not a murder invariably. It may amount to murder if the requirements of clause IV to Sec. 300 are satisfied. (If the case does not fall under any of the exceptions to Sec.300)
Illustration: (c) of Bare Act: A, by shooting at a fowl with the intent to kill and steal it, kills 8 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 8 or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1 to Sec. 299:A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of the other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. (culpable homicide of second degree)
Explanation 2 to Sec. 299: 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, (will amount to culpable homicide of second degree). The principle underlining explanation II is that one who supplies the primary cause of death is to be held liable for deemed death. In such cases the secondary cause of death is to be ignored. Constructive doer is liable as the actual doer is. The above principle has its basis in public policy. Explanation 3 to Sec. 299 : 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, thought he child may not have breathed or been completely born.
1. Nirbhaya Singh v/s State1: A constable who had a loaded but defective gun with him wanted to arrest an accused who was going on a bullock cart by climbing on the cart and there was a scuffle between him and the accused and in course of which the gun went off and killed the constable.
2. Held: The accused Nirbhaya Singh was not liable for culpable homicide because the intention or knowledge contemplated in Sec.299 could not be proved.
3. Joginder Singh v/s State2: Where a person being pursued could not be held guilty of culpable homicide. Where a person being pursued closely on his heels in an open field by his enemies who had already killed one of his relations in the incident jumped into a well in order to save himself and in the process met with his death, it was held that the act of the accused did not constitute an act which was done with the intention or knowledge specified in Sec. 299, IPC, and as such they had to be acquitted.
4. Basappa v/s State3: Where a person was attacked by his enemies on a roof and given a few cuts with a dangerous weapon and in order to avoid the attack he jumped from the roof to his death, it was held that even if the death was caused by his own act of jumping, the accused were guilty of murder as jumping was necessitated by their act.
5. Punchanun Tanti v/s State4: The accused, having received great provocation from his wife, pushed her with both arms so as to throw her with violence to the ground, and after she was down, slapped her with his open hand. The woman died on account of the rupture of her spleen which was diseased. It was held that he was guilty of causing hurt.
6. Chatur Nath v/s States: In the course of an altercation between the accused and the complainant on a dark night, the former aimed a blow with his stick at the head of the latter. To ward off the blow, the complainant's wife, who had a child on her arm, intervened between them. The blow missed its aim, but fell on the head of the child, causing severe injuries, from the effects of which it died. It was held that inasmuch as the blow, if it had reached the complainant, would have caused simple hurt, the accused was guilty of simple hurt only. Culpable Homicide when Amounts to Murder- Section- 300: 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. (Sec.300 para1). 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 bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused (Sec. 300 para 2). 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 bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (Sec. 300 para 3). Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is known to the doer to be 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 of such injury as aforesaid (Section 300 para3). Culpable Homicide when it does not amount to Murder:
1. Culpable homicide would not amount to murder in the following cases:
a) Culpable homicide would not amount to murder if it does not satisfy the additional requirements of the corresponding clause of Sec. 300. b) Culpable homicide would not amount to murder if it falls under any of the five exceptions to Sec. 300. 2. Following are the exceptions to Sec. 300.
a) Grave and sudden provocation b) Exceeding in the exercise of right of Private defence. d) Public servant exceeding powers given to him by law. e) Causing of death in a sudden fight, without premeditation. f) Consent of the deceased above the age of 18.
Grave and Sudden Provocation : Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of person who gave the provocation or of any other person by mistake or accident. It only reduces criminal liability. No complete exception from criminal liability.
Exception 1: to Sec. 300 is subject to following limitations: i) The provocation must not be sought or voluntarily provoked as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. 1. Provocation is not given by:
a. Anything done in obedience to the law. b. Anything done by a public servant in lawful exercise of his powers. c. Anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Artificial Provocation – KM Nanawati v/s State of Bombay Held :
1. In India, words and gestures may, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation. 2. The mental background created by previous acts of the victim may be taken into account when the plea taken is of grave and sudden provocation. 3. Nature of the act of the victim is also to be taken into consideration. The court has to see whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society to which the accused belongs, if placed in the same situation, would suffer provocation of a nature so as to lose his self-control. 4. The fatal blow should be clearly traceable to the passion arising from the provocation. A fatal blow after the passion has cooled down cannot be the basis of sudden and grave provocation. Where there was time and scope for premeditation and calculation, the benefit of exception 1 cannot be given.
State v/s Ullah,1950, Cuttack: Held: Mere words howsoever provocative cannot so provoke a reasonable man as to induce him to commit a violence. (This case was overruled in KM Nanawati's case, 1962, SC)
Exception II - Exceeding the limits prescribed by law in exercise in good faith of Right of Private defence: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he exercises the right. Benefit of exception can be availed if it is further shown that the offender, without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary, has caused the death in question. 1. Culpable homicide is not a murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law, and causes death. 2. Benefit of exception can be claimed only if the act done was in good faith and only in the belief that the act done was lawful and necessary in the due discharge of his duties. Further, it has to be shown that the offender did not have any ill will towards the deceased. Exception IV- Death Caused in a Sudden Fight: 1. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 2. Here it is immaterial as to which party offers provocation or commits the assault.
Exception V: Culpable Homicide with Consent: Culpable homicide is not murder if the person whose death is caused, being above age of 18 years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder: 1. The main point of distinction between murder and culpable homicide is degree of criminality. Degree of criminality is higher in case of murder in comparison to culpable homicide. 2. Every murder is primarily and necessarily a culpable homicide. But every culpable homicide is not necessarily a murder. In other words culpable homicide is a genus, while murder is only a species thereof. 3. Murder has been defined u/s 300. It is punishable U/s 302. Culpable homicide is less serious an offence and is punishable u/s 304 IPC. 4. The distinction between culpable homicide and murder is very fine but is appreciable. In order to distinguish the two offences the key words occurring in the different clauses of Sec. 300 must be taken note of. 5. R V/s Govinda, (1876, Bombay): In this case Melvile J. distinguished the offence of culpable homicide from murder by undertaking a comparison between the corresponding clauses of the two sections. 6. State v/s R. Punnaya, 1977,SC: a) The code practically recognizes three degrees or kinds of culpable homicide. b) Culpable homicide in the first degree has been defined as murder in Sec. 300. It is the gravest form of culpable homicide. c) Second culpable homicide is termed as culpable homicide in second degree. It is punishable under clause I of Sec.304. d) Culpable homicide in the third degree is the lowest from. It is punishable under clause II of Sec.304. e) The courts must first see whether the death complained of has resulted from the act of the accused. If the act of the accused in question is in affirmative Sec. 300 should be taken into consideration. f) If the case is not covered u/s 300 it would not be a murder. Further, if case falls in any of the exceptions to Sec.300 again it would not be a murder. g) The above guidelines, if kept in mind, would facilitate the task of the court.
Punishment:
1) Culpable homicide(not amounting to murder) is punishable u/s 304. Culpable homicide of the first and second degrees are punishable under clause I to Sec. 304. The punishment provided is life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description which may extend up to 10yrs and fine. Culpable homicide of third degree is punishable with an imprisonment of either description which may extend up to 10yrs or with fine or with both.
2) Murder is punishable u/s 302 IPC. Life imprisonment is the general punishment to be given for murder. In the rarest of the rare case murder maybe punished with death. The rarest of the rare cases are the cases in which the offender commits murder in the most cruel and unusual manner.
Culpable Homicide by Causing Death of Person other than Person whose Death was Intended : Section- 301
1. The accused must have intended or known to be likely to cause death.
2. The offender must have caused death of a person by the act though he neither intended nor knew to be likely to cause death of a person actually killed.
3. In the above case, the accused would be liable to be punished as if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or known or likely to be caused.
4. The principle incorporated in Sec. 301 is generally known as Doctrine of Transfer of Malice.
5. A person whose case, falls u/s301 is to be punished U/s 302 or 304 as the case may be.
Punishment for Murder Committed by a Person under Life Imprisonment. The section provides for death as the only punishment - Section- 303
Mithu V/s State of Punjab7: This section has been struck down by the Supreme Court as void and unconstitutional being violative of both Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It regards life-convict to be a dangerous class without any scientific basis and thus violates Art. 14 and similarly by completely cutting out judicial discretion it becomes a law which is not just, fair and reasonable within the meaning of Art. 21.
a) It was declared unconstitutional as it deprives the court of its discretionary power and compels the judge to act like a machine.
b) Death penalty given by Court of Session shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.
c) Doctrine of transfer of malice is also known as Doctrine of transmigration of malice.
Comments