This article has been written by Mrs. Aishwarya Gaikwad form MIT-WPU and the author is a 4th year law student.A

Detailed Explanation

Culpable homicide is a crime that is defined under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Even if it’s not murder, culpable homicide is nevertheless a serious crime. The section is broken up into two sections: the first defines “culpable homicide,” and the second lists the associated penalties.

Section 299’s first paragraph states that responsible homicide can occur in one of the following ways:

If the act that results in death is performed with the purpose to do so if the deed was done with the aim to harm someone in a way that would likely result in death If the act that results in death is committed knowing that it would likely result in death but without intending to do so or to cause such physical harm that will likely result in death or if  the act causing death is committed without any purpose to cause death or any bodily harm, but with knowledge that it is likely to produce such physical injury as is likely to cause death.

To put it simply, someone commits culpable homicide when they cause the death of another person in one of the four methods mentioned above. The degree of purpose or knowledge underlying the conduct that resulted in the death distinguishes culpable homicide from murder. Murder is defined as an act that was done with the purpose to kill. It is deemed responsible homicide if the act was performed without the purpose to cause death but with knowledge that it is likely to do so.

Section 299’s second section outlines the penalties for the crime of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide that does not amount to murder carries a sentence of life in prison or a maximum of 10 years in jail, as well as a fine. Depending on the facts of the case, the court has the power to decide what sentence is suitable.

The clause has been construed by the Indian judiciary in a number of judgements to establish the nature of the offence and the proper penalty. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) that there are two types of culpable homicide: (i) culpable homicide that amounts to murder and (ii) culpable homicide that does not amount to murder. According to the court, there are two subcategories of culpable homicide that do not constitute murder: (a) culpable homicide committed with the intent to cause bodily harm that is likely to result in death; and (b) culpable homicide committed with knowledge that the act is likely to result in death.  The Supreme Court ruled in S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews (2019) that there must be an intention or knowledge that the conduct would likely result in death or in bodily harm that will likely result in death for it to be culpable homicide.

In K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962), a navy officer fatally shot the boyfriend of his wife. He was convicted guilty of murder by the trial court, but the Bombay High Court overturned the decision and mandated a new trial. The Supreme Court finally decided that Nanavati was not convicted of murder because he had committed culpable homicide that did not amount to murder when acting out of passion.

Orilal Jaiswal was charged in State of West Bengal v. Jaiswal (1994) with killing his wife by beating her to death with a stick. The Calcutta High Court downgraded the accusation from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder after the trial court found him guilty of the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the High Court and defined what constitutes culpable homicide. State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kavita (1997): In this instance, a wife doused her husband in paraffin before setting him ablaze. She was accused of murder after he passed away from his wounds. The High Court overturned the lower court’s conviction of her for culpable homicide that did not constitute murder. In the end, the Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s judgement, concluding that the widow had not intended to bring about the death of her husband.

In the case of Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2001), the husband had shot and killed both his wife and her boyfriend. Although he was found guilty of murder, the Supreme Court reduced the charge because it had been committed in the heat of passion.

These instances provide as an example of the difficulties in assessing whether an act qualifies as culpable murder and the proper sanction for the crime. In these and other instances, the Indian judiciary has been instrumental in interpreting and applying the provisions of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.

Finally, Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code outlines the definition of culpable homicide as well as the associated penalties. Although it is not murder, it is still a serious offence that carries heavy penalties. The clause is crucial for ensuring that justice is carried out in situations when a person has died as a result of a deed that was not necessarily done with the intention of killing the victim.