Culpable Homicide and Murder

CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

A murder is merely a particular form of culpable homicide. Every murder is culpable homicide, but every culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is the genus, and murder, its species.

Homicide is the highest order of bodily injury that can be inflicted on a human body.

Homicide means the killing of a human being by a human being. death may be caused by either an act of commission or an act of omission. The idea of killing by an omission implies the possibility of doing the act whose omission causes death. Killing by an omission is in no case criminal, unless there is a legal duty to do that which is omitted.

The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences:

On a comparison of sections 299 and 300, the following points of distinction may be arrived at.

• Clause (a) of section 299 and clause (1) of section 300 are identical. If death is caused by an act, which is done with the intention of causing death, then it is culpable homicide under section 299 (a). It also amounts to murder under clause (1) of section 300, unless it falls under any of the exceptions.

Ø  Clause (b) of Section 299 of the IPC corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of

Section 300 of the IPC. 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. Clause (b) of Section 299 of the IPC does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender.

It is noteworthy that the ‘intention to cause death’ is not an essential requirement of clause (2) of section 300. 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 clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300 of the IPC.

• In clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC The distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As far as clause (3) of section 300 is concerned, the intention of causing bodily injury is accompanied by a further objective of certainty that such bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The word “sufficient” in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, again imputes the certainty of death to a greater extent than the words “likely” in section 299(b).
• Both clause (c) of section 299 and clause (4) of 300 apply to cases where the accused has no intention to cause death or bodily injury, but there is knowledge that the act is essentially a risky one.

Whether the act amounts to murder or culpable homicide depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide; if it is the most probable result, it is murder

The framers of the IPC designedly used the two words ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’, and it must be taken that the framers intended to draw a distinction between these two expressions. The knowledge of the consequences which may result in the doing of an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Except in cases where mens rea is not required in order to prove that a person had certain knowledge, he “must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow.”

culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ is species. All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, ‘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 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 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. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304.”

300. Murder—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.

First clause of sec 300 –

if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death .

The first clause of section 300 simply stipulates that when an act (including legal omission) is done with the intention of causing death, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder.

Illustration (a) to section 300

• A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.

2nd clause

(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)

Thus, the mens rea contemplated under clause 2 of section 300 is twofold i.e

Intention + subjective knowledge (accused’s own perception of the consequences of his act)

The second clause of section 300 will apply if there is first, the intention to cause bodily harm and next, there is the “subjective knowledge” that death will be the likely consequence of the intended injury.’ Illustration (b)

The word “likely” in clause (2) of section 300, coupled with the word “knowledge”, indicates definiteness or certainty of death and not a mere probability.

3rd clause – 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.

Clause 3 of section 300 stipulates that the bodily injury intended is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The knowledge here is objective, as opposed to the subjective requirement in clause 2 of section 300. Therefore, the requirement of clause (3) of section 300 is that it must be objectively established that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. By objective, it means it is not the personal perception of the accused that matters, but whether objectively speaking, in real terms, the injury intentionally caused is sufficient to cause death. Illustration(c)

Virsa Singh: In Virsa Singh v State of Punjab, the Apex Court held that whether the injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that particular case.

Under clause 3rdly of section 300, IPC culpable homicide is murder, if both of the following conditions are satisfied, namely:—

• that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing bodily injury, and
• that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Therefore, in order to bring a case under 3rdly, the prosecution must establish—

Firstly, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved;

These are purely objective investigations.

Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and,

Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.

4th clause

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.

The essential ingredients of this clause are:

• the act must be imminently dangerous;
• the person committing the act must have knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous;
• that in all probability it will cause (a) death or (b) bodily injury as is likely to cause death and
• such imminently dangerous act should be done without any reason or justification for running the risk of causing death or such injury.

It conveys that culpable homicide based on knowledge does not amount to murder if the accused has an “excuse” for “incurring the risk”, even if none of the five special exceptions to section 300 is applicable. The words “without excuse” used in clause 4, thus, contemplate situations other than those which fall within the five exceptions to section 300, IPC