- Introduction
Intention and knowledge are the most important elements in differentiating murder, culpable homicide and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This response paper will try and effectively prove the difference between the doctrine of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and how intention can change everything in the court trials. We will not start directly going into the definitions of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but rather understand the blanket concept of culpable homicide first.
- Conceptual Understanding
Before going in, it is important to make sure the relevance of the research question at hand. A lot of people do not really understand the meaning of culpable homicide, and just equate it to murder. It is vital to distinguish between the terms for a better legal understanding on the subject and its application. This paper will establish that there is a very ambiguous difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder, and language needs to be changed for the IPC to be lucid to the layman. Section 299 defines Culpable Homicide, while Section 300 entails the constituents of murder, and the exceptions to it which make culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Sections 302 and 304 determine the punishment for murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Legality
- Terminology
Section 299 is defined as ‘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.’
If we go by the definition, the terms ‘intention’, ‘knowledge’, ‘likely to cause’ are very important for understanding the concept of culpable homicide and the decree or degree of their intensity in differentiating murder from culpable homicide. With intention and knowledge being the primary ingredients, there is also a special mens rea wherein the offender knows the likelihood of the death of the person .
Section 300 states ‘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, or—
2ndly. —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
3rdly. —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
4thly. —If the person committing the act knows that it is 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 or such injury as aforesaid.’
On first reading, it may look like culpable homicide and murder have the same definition and no difference. But on careful scrutinizing, we can see that the degree of intention and knowledge makes all the difference in murder. There is substantial knowledge in murder and grave intention, unlike culpable homicide, as can be seen by the phrases ‘sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’ and ‘imminently dangerous.’ I will later, with the help of case laws, delve deeper into the 2ndly, 3rdly, and 4thly of Section 300.
We can establish from the cursory reading of the IPC that the doctrine of culpable homicide curtails Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder.
Moving onto, Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder under Section 300 is determined rather as exceptions to murder where it amounts to culpable homicide, hence the term. Exceptions to Murder are: –
- Grave and Sudden Provocation;
- Private Defence;
- Acts of Public Servants;
- Sudden Fight
- Legal Elucidation/Arguments with Case Laws
With focus on the research problem at hand, let’s delve deeper into the meaning of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
If we read the 2ndly of the Section 300, we need to focus on the words ‘knows to be likely to cause’, wherein it shows the clear knowledge and mens rea on the part of the offender.
In the case of 3rdly, if we go for the landmark judgement of Virsa Singh case, the phrases ‘intention’, ‘sufficient’, ‘ordinary course of nature’ are important. The judges gave the judgement in favour of the prosecution, wherein they were able to convince the bench that the perpetrator had knowledge that a blow could, in the ordinary course of nature, result into death of a person. Despite the defence’s proposition to read the Section 300, 3rdly as a whole, and that the perpetrator had no intention to cause death, rather the intention to cause bodily harm; the judges believed the prosecution to be true and sentenced Virsa Singh under Section 302.
Another famous case in the 3rdly of Section 300 is Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar 1972 3 SCC 118. The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302, while other appellants were charged for grievous hurt. The intention and the ordinary course of nature were the key elements in this case. Though the defence advocated for it not being the intention of the appellant to kill the victim, the medical evidence with extenuating facts were too high to prove otherwise, and in the light of the 3rdly of Section 300, Gudar Dusadh was held liable under Section 302 and sentenced for life.
B.B. Pande’s limits on objective liability for murder is a critique on the Gudar Dusadh V State of Bihar case, wherein the supreme court faulty applied the objective liability test in order to decide the matter. The author criticizes the supreme court judgment for failing to draw a fine line distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Instead of focusing on the main ingredient of objective liability the judges have mainly relied on medical evidence to adjudicate the matter.
The clause 4 of the Section 300 and Section 299(c) are very similar, but the phrase ‘imminently dangerous’ makes the difference as the certainty of death is higher than Section 299(c). A complicated case in front of the Supreme Court came in the form of Emperor vs Mt. Dhirajia AIR 1940 All 486, wherein the appellant was charged with attempt to suicide and murder (under S. 302) for killing her own baby. She was acquitted of the former charge, but was convicted of the latter charge under sub-clause 4 of the Section 300, because the judges deemed it that there was an imminent danger to the baby and there was a clear intention on the part of the appellant. Gyarsibai v. The State AIR 1953 MP 61 was a case wherein the judges deemed it to be murder but the state of mind or intention wasn’t clear, hence they found it necessary to give her a lesser sentence.
Coming to Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder, the exceptions include Grave and Sudden Provocation, Private Defence, Acts of Public Servants, and Sudden Fight.
Grave and Sudden Provocation, as is explanatory by the name, is done when the person is aggravated or provoked and he intentionally or unintentionally kills them in a fit of rage and in that moment. The most famous case of this is K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra 1962 SC 602, wherein the appellant shot his wife’s lover, and it was held that it was premeditated and hence cannot come under the exceptions and was deemed murder.
Private Defence is when the person is imminently threatened on his person or his property or other person or other’s property, such an action to protect them resulting in death.
Acts done by the Public Servants are done for their duty and cannot be considered as murder.
Sudden Fight emerges in a moment and is accidental and not intentional in nature.
- Criticism
Firstly, the definitions of culpable homicide in S. 299 and murder in S. 300 are very similar to each other, and can be confused with easily by a layman. These sections and definitions are not at all clear in their wordings and can be misinterpreted very easily.
Secondly, the clear distinction between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder has not been drawn clearly by the Supreme Court, and rather the interpretation has been done on case-by-case basis.
Thirdly, there needs to be a strong litmus test that determines the distinction between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder. A test, which has been reviewed and assessed by the Supreme Court Collegium, needs to be implemented throughout the country.
Fourthly, the language in the IPC really needs to specify the decree or degree of knowledge and intention that differentiates the terms. Culpable Homicide being the blanket term, gets the leeway, but S. 300 needs to be properly reviewed.
Fifthly, there is no clear distinction between the first exception and the last exception, i.e., Grave and Sudden Provocation and Sudden Fight. With close reading only can one determine the difference, but it also again depends on a case-to-case basis.
Sixthly, the laws of Murder and Culpable Homicide were put during the draconian rule of British Raj, and we have inherited their English-ness in our laws. We need to properly review and amend the laws and IPC as a whole.
- Conclusion
Through the above arguments and in the following paper, I have tried to establish the difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder is incoherent, and needs a good revamping from the Legislative and Judicial point of view. Culpable Homicide in the S. 299 starts the whole chain of misfires, wherein the illustrations that should really be determining and solidifying the concept, rather confuse us more. The illustrations for Culpable Homicide especially, on a cursory look, would appear to be a case of murder, and that is where the fault lies on the part of the judiciary and legislature. In the application of such laws, one can argue for either murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or even culpable homicide, and win the case. There is no clear establishment of truth in these laws, examples and the illustrations provided in the IPC. I would end this paper by saying that the difference is uncertain between the appellant and the prosecution, and can be won by anyone.
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening