CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION
2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
I. DEATH CAUSED OF PERSON OTHER THAN INTENDED
II. MURDER DISTINGUISHED FROM CULPABLE HOMICIDE
III.
PRESUMPTION REGARDING INTENTION OR

P- 1
P- 2
P- 8
P- 9

KNOWLEDGE
IV.PROVOCATION CAUSED BY ACT
3. CASE STUDY
4. CONCLUSION
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

P- 9

P- 10
P- 12
P- 17
P- 18

1. INTRODUCTION
To kill another human being is an inexcusable crime, whether done with the
intention of achieving the net result or not. The word homicide has been derived
from the latin word homo which means a man, and caedere which means to cut
or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing of a human being, by a human being. But
then, not all cases of homicide are culpable as all systems of law do distinguish
between lawful and unlawful homicide For instance, killing in self defense or in
pursuance of a lawful authority or by reason of mistake or fact, is not culpable.
Likewise, if death is caused by accident or misfortune, or while doing an act in
good faith and without any criminal intention for the benefit of the person killed,
the man is excused from criminal responsibility for homicide.
Further in some cases the accused may be punished for lesser offences (for e.g.
hurt) even though death has resulted, if the injury resulting in death though
voluntarily caused was not likely to cause death. For example, A gives B a blow
and B, who suffers from an enlarged spleen of which A was not aware, dies as a
result. A is not guilty of Culpable Homicide as his intention was merely to cause an
injury that was not likely to cause death.
It is in connection with with homicide that the maxim actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea has been frequently cited as stating the two fundamental requirements
of criminal liability.

2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

Culpable Homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide as defined in Section

299, I.P.C it purports to define and explain as to when an act of causing death
constitutes Culpable Homicide. The important elements are:a) Causing of death of a human being.
b) Such death must have been caused by an act
i. With the intention of causing death; or
ii. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or.
iii. With the knowledge that the doer is likely by such an act to cause death.
The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Unless one of the
mental states mentioned in ingredient is present, an act causing death cannot
amount to Culpable Homicide. Thus where a constable who had 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, it was held that
accused could not be held guilty of Culpable Homicide.
Circumstances For Culpable Homicide,
a) Causes Death: In order to hold a person liable under the impugned Section there
must be causing of death of a human being as defined under Section 46 of the
Code. The causing of death of a child in the mothers womb is not homicide as
stated in Explanation 3 appended to Section 299, I.P.C. But the person would not
be set free. He would be punishable for causing miscarriage either under Section
312 or 315 I.P.C depending on the gravity of the injury. The act of causing death
amounts to Culpable Homicide if any part of that child has been brought forth,
3

though the child may not have breathed or been completely born. The clause
though the child may not have breathed suggests that a child may be born alive,
though it may not breath (respire) , or it may respire so imperfectly that it may be
difficult to obtain clear proof that respiration takes place. Causing of death must be
of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least
partially an infant under delivery or just delivered.
b) By Doing An Act With The Intention Of Causing Death: Death may be caused
by a hundred and one means, such as by poisoning, drowning, striking, beating and
so on and so forth. As explained under Section 32, I.P.C the word act has been
given a wider meaning in the Code in as much as it includes not only an act of
commission, but illegal omissions as well and the word illegal is applicable to
everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which is
prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for civil action (s.43). Therefore
death caused by illegal omission will amount to Culpable Homicide.
i. Death caused by effect of words on imaginations or passions: The authors of
the Code observe : The reasonable course, in our opinion , is to consider speaking
as an act, and to treat A as guilty of voluntary Culpable Homicide, if by speaking
he has voluntarily caused Zs death, whether his words operated circuitously by
inducing Z

to swallow a

poison

or

throwing Z

into convulsions.

c) With The Intention Of Causing Such Bodily Injury as is likely to cause death: .
The word intention in clause (a) to Section 299, I.P.C has been used in its
ordinary sense, i.e., volitional act done without being able to forsee the
consequence with certitude. The connection between the act and the death caused
thereby must be direct and distinct; and though not immediate it must not be too
4

remote. If the nature of the connection between the act and the death is in itself
obscure, or if it is obscured by the action of concurrent causes, or if the connection
is broken by the intervention of subsequent causes, or if the interval of time
between death and the act is too long, the above condition is not fulfilled. Where a
constable fired five shots in succession at another constable resulting in his death,
it was held that it would be native to suggest that he had neither intention to kill
nor any knowledge that injuries sufficient to kill in ordinary course of nature would
not follow. His acts squarely fell in clauses 2,3 and 4 of s.300, I.P.C i.e Culpable
Homicide amounting to murder.
d) With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death : Knowledge is
a strong word and imports ceratinity and not merely a probability.If the death is
caused under circumstances specified under Section 80, the person causing the
death will be exonerated under that Section. But, if it is caused in doing an
unlawful act, the question arises whether he should be punished for causing it. The
Code says that when a person engaged in the commission of an offence, without
any addition on account of such accidental death. The offence of Culpable
Homicide supposes an intention, or knowledge of likelihood of causing death. In
the absence of such intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be
grievous hurt, or simple hurt. It is only where death is attributed to an injury which
the offender did not know would endanger life would be likely to cause death and
which in normal conditions would not do so notwithstanding death being caused,
that the offence will not be Culpable Homicide but grievous or simple hurt. Every
such case depends upon the existence of abnormal conditions unkown to the
person who inflicts injury. Once it is established that an act was a deliberate acct
and not the result of accident or rashness or negligence, it obvious that the offence
would be Culpable Homicide.
5

e) Death Caused of Person Other Than Intended: To attract the provisions of this
Section it suffices if the death of a human being is caused whether the person was
intended to be killed or not. For instance, B with the intention of killing A in order
to obtain the insured amount gave him some sweets mixed with poison. The
intended victim ate some of the sweets and threw the rest away which were picked
up by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. It was held that B as liable
for murder of the children though he intended to kill only A.
f) Death Caused Inadvertently without Intention While Doing an Unlawful Act: It
has been clearly stated in I.P.C that a person will not be liable for Culpable
Homicide, if he causes the death of a person while doing an unlawful act, provided
he did not intend to kill or cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to
have that effect. On the other hand, under English law, if a person whilst
committing an unlawful act accidently kills another, he would be liable for
manslaughter or murder according to whether his act constituted a felony or
misdemeanour.

Section 299 of the Indian Penal code states the following,

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
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.
The Illustrations that follow are as follows,
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of there by causing death, or
with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the
6

ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of
culpable homicide.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.
The explanations given thereafter are as follows,
Explanation 1
A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring 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 skilful 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.

Followed by the comments on the said section,

I.

DEATH CAUSED OF PERSON OTHER THAN INTENDED

The accused, with the intention of killing A or whose life he had taken out
considerable insurance without latters knowledge, in order to obtain the insured
amount gave him some sweets mixed with a well known poison like arsenic. The
intended victim ate some of the sweets and threw the rest away which were picked
up by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. It was held that the
accused was liable for the murder of the children though he intended only to kill A;
Public Prosecutor v. Mushunooru Suryanarayana Moorty1.

1 (1942) 2 MWN 136: (1912) 13 Cr LJ 145

8

II.

MURDER DISTINGUISHED FROM CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Culpable homicide is genus, and murder is the specie. All murder are
culpable homicide but not vice-versa; Narasingh Challan v. State of Orissa2.

III.

PRESUMPTION REGARDING INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE

The accused struck his wife a violent blow on the head with the plougshare which
rendered her unconscious and hanged his wife soon afterwards under the
impression that she was already dead intending to create false evidence as to the
cause of the death and to conceal his own crime. It was held that the intention of
the accused must be judged not in the light of the actual circumstances, but in the
light of what he supposed to be the circumstances. Hence, the accused cannot be
convicted either of murder or culpable homicide, he could of course be punished
both for his original assault on his wife and for his attempt to create fake evidence
by hanging her; Palani Gaindan v. Emperor, (1919) 42 Mad 547.

IV.

PROVOCATION CAUSED BY ACT

2 (1997) 2 Crimes 78 (Ori)

9

The assault for murder cannot be said to be sudden and without meditation as the
deceased was not armed; State of Maharashtra v. Krishna Murti Lazmipatti Naidu3.
Homicide is the killing of a Human being by a Human being 4. It may either be
lawful or unlawful. Lawful Homicide includes several cases falling under Chapter
IV of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the general exceptions.
Homicide is of the following kind;

Murder5
Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder6
Causing death by negligence7
Suicide8

The essentials of culpable homicide are as follows,

Causing of death of a Human being;
Such death must have been caused by doing an Act;
The Act must have been done,
1. With the intention of causing death of a Human being;
2. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
or
3. With the knowledge that the doer is likely, by such act, to cause death.
3 AIR 1981 SC 617: (1981) SC Cr R 398: (1981) Cr LJ 9: (1981) SCC (Cr) 354
4 Stephen, Digest of Criminal Law
5 Section 302
6 Section 304
7 Section 304A
8 Sections 305 & section 306
10

It is imperative to understand the section of the IPC better, it is imperative on my

part to look at this section in phrases,
Whoever causes Death Death means the death of a Human being. It does
not include the death of an unborn child. But in view of Explanation 3 given
in the said section, it may amount to culpable homicide to cause death of a
living child if any part of the child has been brought forth, though the child
may not have breathed or been completely born. However, it is not necessary
that the person whose death has been caused must be the very person
accused intended to kill9. The offence of Culpable Homicide is complete as
soon as any person is killed by the accused whose intention is to either cause
death or with the knowledge that he was likely, by such act, to cause death.
By doing an act This includes the acts mentioned earlier and also includes
omission. An omission is illegal if it be an offence, if it be a breach of some
direction of law, or if it be such a wrong as would be a good ground for a
civil action. Therefore, death caused by illegal omission will also amount to
culpable homicide.
Intention to cause death Intention means the expectation of the
consequence in question. When a man is charged with doing the act, of
which the probable consequences may be highly injurious, the intention is an
inference of law resulting from doing an Act 10. Intention is to be inferred
from the acts of the accused and the circumstances of the case 11. Thus,
9 Section 301
10 As per Lord Ellenbourgh, C.J. in Dixon (1814) 3 M. & S. 11, 15
11 Ghufar, (1887) P. R. No. 62 of 1882
11

deliberately firing by a loaded gun at one leads to interference that the

intention was to cause death.
With intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death The
intention of the offender may not be to cause death, it would be sufficient if
he intended to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death. The
connection between the act and the death caused should be direct and
distinct; and though not immediate, it must not be too remote. If the
connection is too obscure with many intervening factors in the matter, or if
the time gap between the act and the death is too long, the above connection
is not fulfilled.
An intention also inclides foresight of certainity. A consequence is deemed to be
intended though it is not desired when it is foreseen as substantially certain.

3. CASE STUDY

Attra v. State12
In this case, the accused detected a theft being carried out in his house; he
apprehended the thief and beat him so severely that later, upon detailed
investigation there were discovered One Hundred and forty-one marks of separate
blows on the body of the victim. Several of his ribs were broken and he died. As
the death that was caused was a direct consequence of the act of the accused, he
was convicted under sec. 304 of the Indian Penal code. His actions were also seen
to be in conformation with the ideals laid down in sec. 299 as while beating up
12 (1891) PR No. 9 of 1891
12

another person so brutally, he must have known that his act was likely to cause
death.
Md. Isak Md. v. State13
The act that caused death was a direct outcome of a heated conversation between
the accused and the deceased and there was no evidence that the accused was the
one who delivered the first blow in the following struggle, thus it was held that this
act would only amount to Culpable Homicide and not murder.
Murder and Culpable Homicide distinguished
The distinction between Murder (defined under Section 300) and culpable
homicide (defined under Section 299) are two offences under the Indian Penal
Code the distinction between which has always been perplexing to the law
students. For their benefit, we are referring to a recently reported decision of the
Supreme Court wherein these principles have been explained in extension as
under;
Section 299 and Section 300 of IPC deals with the definition of culpable homicide
and murder respectively. Section 299 defines culpable homicide as the act of
causing death;
(i)
(ii)

with the intention of causing death or

with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death

(iii)

or
with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.

The bare reading of the section makes it crystal clear that the first and the second
clause of the section refer to intention apart from the knowledge and the third
13 AIR 1979 SC 1434
13

clause refers to knowledge alone and not intention. Both the expression "intent"
and "knowledge" postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude which is of
different degrees. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. mental attitude
towards the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. If that is
caused in any of the aforesaid three circumstances, the offence of culpable
homicide is said to have been committed. Section 300 IPC, however, deals with
murder although there is no clear definition of murder provided in Section 300
IPC. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that culpable homicide is the genus
and murder is species and that all murders are culpable homicide but not vice
versa. Section 300 IPC further provides for the exceptions which will constitute
culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304.
When and if there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of
Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to
cause murder and bodily injury, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part
II. The aforesaid distinction between an act amounting to murder and an act not
amounting to murder has been brought out in the numerous decisions of this Court.

State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya14

The Court observed as follows at page 386:"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code,
"culpable homicides" 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 Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable
14 , (1976) 4 SCC 382
14

homicide. The first is what may be called, "culpable homicide of the first degree".
This is the greatest 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 first part ofSection 304. Then, there is "culpable
homicide of the third degree". This is thelowest type of culpable homicide and the
punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for
the three grades. Culpable homicideof this degree is punishable under the second
part of Section 304.

Abdul Waheed Khan v. State of A.P.15

Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300.
The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the
knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in
such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him
is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the
ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health
or condition. It is noteworthy that the "intention to cause death" is not an
essential requirement of clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily
injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury
causing the death of the particular victim is sufficient to bring the killing within
the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by Illustration (b)
appended to Section 300.14. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any
such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under
15 (2002) 7 SCC 175
15

clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a fist-blow
intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver,
or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of
that particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the
failure of the heart, as the case may be.

Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka16,

The deceased were attacked by the accused while returning from a movie. This
incident left the one of the person dead and another severely injured. This situation
was then reported and gave rise to a case of culpable homicide as the assailants
were armed with only sticks and had struck in only those parts of the body wich
could have caused hurt but not death. The one person who died met his demise
because of a health condition that he suffered from.

16 (2003) 10 SCC 472

16

4. CONCLUSION
The idea of Culpable Homicide is important to be incorporated in the IPC as it is
imperative for the recognition to be given to those who might have caused the
death of another by their act, but might not have intended the same. There is a
difference between those who commit such acts with existent knowledge of what
they are doing and those who dont. In recognizing this, the IPC provides for much
better justice.

5. Bibliography
17

Textbook on the Indian Penal Code K. D. Gaur

The Indian Penal Code Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
Commentary on the Indian Penal Code K.D. Gaur
Commentary on the Indian Penal Code Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
www.legalservicesindia.com
www.indiankannon.com
www.vakilno1.com
www.lawctopus.com

18