CHAPTER33

Homicide

(Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 299 to 311)

INTRODUCTION

homi (man) and cido (cut).

word homicide has been derived from Latin terms
The
'homicide' means the killing of a
human being by another human
Literallv, the word or accelerating the
death of a
term for the causing,
being. Homicide is the generic
human being by another
human being.
unlawful or criminal. Death caused by an

However, every homicide is not

or a person of
the of discretion (doli incapax)
innocent agent, like a child
under age of private
the assailant caused in exercise of the right
of while in
unsound mind, or death In the former, the doer is 'excused',
actence,for example, is not unlawful. theretore, are ot w o types: (1)
Homicides,
is 'justified'. homicides are those
which are
thelatter the defendant's act
unlawful homicides. Lawful theretore,
2wtul homicides, and (2) the IPC and which,
Exceptions' of
COvered by Chapter IV: Of
General under the Code
that are made punishable
homicides
nor punishable. The unlawful homicides.
ODVously carry the label of exception
that envelopes the
n a t u r e of 'general
and () justitiable
nOmicides, relying o n the excusable homicides,
mi can further be classified
into: (i)
known to the
IPC. Thev are:
de, forms of
homicide
unlawtul or
criminal
Thus, there are three and (ii)
fi ES homicides,
Here we are
concerned

excusable homicides, (ii) justifiable norjustiticd).

homi neither excused
s.e. homicides that are
Wit
wIth unlawful homicides. Lite' and deals
with
Atfecting
with the 'Offences They a r e : ()
culpable
Chapter
iomicide
XVI of the IPC begins
in ir four
homicide ottences.
h o m i c i u d e amounting
to murder,
incorporates suicide
culpable deals with
homicide enotsamounting
.Tt
to murder, (2)
to
and (4) dowry
death. lu also
3) death by a rash ting
a negligent
or
act,
and thugs.
u
Inuoduction
Scctions 299 and 300, IPC. define
culpable homicide. which is of two types:
(1 Culpable homicide amounting to murder:
(2) Culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
The provisions
rclating to murder and cuipable homicide are probably the most
complicatcd in the 1PC. and are so technical that very often they lead to confusion. A

570
 Homicide

murde 1s
rely a
particular form of culpable homicide. Every murder is culpable
ery culpable
homicide, b u t e v e r y homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is the genus,
Its spccies.
murder,
and
299 defines culpable homicide simpliciter. Section 300 defines murder, which
Section

ulpable homicideide with some special characteristics, which are set out in cll
1-4
subject to the exceptions given in s 300. If any culpable homicide falls within
300
s
of uses in s 300, then it will amount to murder. All other instances of
four claus.
of the
any including the nes, which may fall within the exceptions to s 300, will
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
homic
culpable
be
While s 299 defines 'culpable homicide, it is not an exhaustive definition. It is

importan
to ember that s 300 also defines culpable homicide, but which amounts to
Before going into further details about distinctions berween s 299 and s 300,
murder

to understand the sections.

IrC, it is important
homicide are: (i) there must be death of a
The essential ingredients of culpable the
nerson: (i) the death should have been caused by the act of another person; and (ii)
death should have been done with: (a) the intention of causing death;
or (b)
ct Causing is death, (c) with
the intention of causing
such bodily injury as likely to cause or

death.
knowledge that such act is likely
to cause
absence of
for three circumstances, wherein the presence or
The definition itself provides homicide.
nevertheless treated as causing culpable
certain factors in causing death is
These circumstances are explanations 1-3.
dealt with in
from some
situation where the injured person is suffering
Explanation 1 provides for a that his death
disease bodily infirmity, which quickened his death. The fact
disorder, or
from, will
was quickened or hastened by the
disorder or disease he was already suffering
In other words, the
not reduce the guilt or culpability
of the person causing the injury. homicide by
criminal liability of culpable
Person wh0 caused the injury
cannot escape disorder, he
suffer from the said disease
or

Sating that if the person injured did not

would not have died. could have

person who
has been injured
situation wherein a
Lanation 2 provides for a
proper medical
and because
and escaped death, if, he had been given prompt died he could
ccovered fact that the injured person
the
ncnt. In such situations too, cannot be a ground tor negating guilt culpability
or

of good medical
treatment,
the first place.
neperson who inflicted the injury in
lt takes into consideration
different situation. the
of slightly
d ath ation 3 is in respect the mother's womb. The law s t a t e s that
a
if the death of if
homicide. However,
caused to a child in it is not culpable
child is caused when still in the mother's womb, it it is n o t tully
born,
st o u t of the
womb, e v e n
mother's
homicide.
portion of the child, comes
amount to culpable
andi de1 s caused to such child,
then it would

CAUSING DEATH': STS FOR

DETERMINING

to understand,
bur has shown
The term 'whoever death' may be simple enoughparticular act would anmount to

causes whether a
tself to be reat import in
deciding decide
whether a particular
whether
Cculpable homicide or not. The very
first test to
culpable homicide,
is to verity
The relevant
omission
the act would be cover ered by the definition of
the death
ot another person.
done by the
h e
acc
accused has 'caused

571
 Criminal Law

consideration for such verification is to scc whether the death is causcd as a direct result of

the act committcd by the accused.

had reccived two
In Moti SinghhState of Utar P'radesh,' the deccascd Gayacharan,
v
to lite (1.C., which were life
were dangerous
gunshot wounds in the abdomen, which 1960. There was no evidence as
on 9 February
threatening). The injury was received the hospital
not when he was discharged from
to whethcr he had fully recovered or
His body was cremated without any
He. however, dicd on 1 March 1960. the act that the two
The Supreme Court held that
mere
postmortem being done.
dangcrouslife were not sutficient for holding thar
to
gunshot injuries were
about three weeks after the incident, was on
Gayacharan's death, which took place observed that in order to prove the
account of the injuries
received by him. The court
establish that he had died on
ot Gayacharan's murder, it was necessary to
charge no evidence to establish the
account of the injuries
received by him. Since there was
caused the death of Gayacharan.
cause of death, the
accused could not be said to have
court in this case was
that the connection between
A crucial aspect highlighted by the
cause and the death
should not be too remote.
the primary
deceased Rupinder Singh had teased the sister
In Joginder Singh v State of Punjab, the house and shouted
two accused went to Rupinder's
of the accused. In retaliation, the meantime, the
sister of Rupinder Singh. In the
that they had come to take away the the
cousins of Rupinder Singh intervened. One
of them was given a blow on the neck by
accused
accused. Meanwhile, Rupinder Singh
started running towards the field. The
into a well. As a result of this, he
started chasing him and Rupinder Singh jumped he died due
sustained head injuries, which made
him loose consciousness and thereafter
about 15 to 20 feet trom
to drowning. The Supreme
Court held that the accused were
show that the
into the well. There was no evidence to
Rupinder Singh, when he jumped well or that they left him no option but
to jump
accused drove Rupinder Singh into the could have
it was held, that the accused
not
into the well. Under these circumstances, ot the
hence they were entitled to be acquitted
caused the death of Rupinder Singh, and
charge of murder.
accused had caused multiple injurnes
In Rewa Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, the
admitted into the hospital and an
with a knife to his wife, Gyanvatibai. She was
her. Thereafter, she developed hyperpyrexia, i.c.. hign
operation was performed on was a result ot
as a result of which she died. This hyperpyrexia
temperature, had some
debilitated individuals, who already
atmospheric temperature on weak, that the death was
doctor who performed the postmortem opined
temperature. The
not as a result of multiple injuries,
but because of hyperpyrexia. The Madhya Pradesh
reliance on expln 2 to s 299, IPC. It
observed that it tne
High Court placed
are attributed to the injuries caused,
then the person intlicting tn
supervening causes result of the injuric.
even if death was not the direct
injuries is liable for causing death, evidence to show that the hyperpyrexia w
In the instant case, there was medical
fell into debilirated condition bec
result of her debilitated condition. Gyanvatibai
due to which she had to underg
of multiple injuries, wlhich she had sustained, her recove
was necessary for
and the post-operative starvation, which icted
operation,
resulted in her death. Thus, her death was a direet conscquence ot the injuries in

AIR 1964 SC 900, (1964) (Cr 1J 727 (SC)

1406 (SC).
2 AIR 1979 SC 1876, (1979) Cr 1J a

1958 SC 465; Kishore Sing"

3 (1978) Cr1J 858 (MP); see also Virsu Singh v State of Punjab AIR
1977 SC 2267.
ofMadhya Pradesh AIR
572
 Homicide
ning or
Intervenin

superven1ng
cause of
independent hyperpyrexia
hcr.
ricsand was not
nlc inj dircct result of the
was
a dircct
hcr.As
or
ned by
As a result, it was
4s hcld, tthe unconnected
COnnccto
with the serious
conviction for musr
murder was accuised had caused' her injuries
t h

ercfore
e r e
his
upheld. death and
ENTION
OR NOWLEDGE
INTEN

Both
the
terms intention'
in and
knowlcdgc appcar in 299 and 300, ss
diterent consequcneo.uucncCs. lntention and
knowledge are used alternatehowever, having
onstitute the offene of culpable homicide. as
Howcver, intention and ingredicnts to
difterent things. knowledge two are

.
between the two came to be considered by the
ditercnce
Statt of Pepsu. In this case, the accused was Supreme Court in
M marriage feast after having got drunk. It was alleged to have shot
his defence that he was16-year
old a

drunk
that he did not have
the so
knowledge or intention to kill the boy for what trifling was a
dent. The court ditterentiated between motive, intention and
nd
knowledge:
Motive is something which prompts a man to torm an intention. Knowledge is an
Wareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases, intention and
knowledge
into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumedmerge
from
knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin. but
it is not difticult to perceive that they connote different things.

intention or the mental element in committing the crime is an essential ingredient of

culpable homicide. While intention is a very important element in all crimes, it
hecomes crucial in the offence of culpable homicide, because it is the degree of intention
of the accused, which determines the degree of crime. In other words, it is the mental
clement of the accused alone, which is material to decide whether a particular act is
Culpable homicide amounting to murder, or culpable homicide not amounting to

murder
As tar as the offence of culpable homicide is concerned, there are three species or
death; (ii) an intention to cause
eEs of mens rea present: (G) an intention to cause that the act is
ngerous bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and (i) knowledge
ikely to cause death.
Inte homicide, does not alwavs
n On in the context of the definition of culpable Ihe expectation that
to kill a person.
rh mean pre-meditation or pre-planning constitute intention. A man
is sufficient to
person is likely to result in death he is presumed to
ye and theretore, in law,
natural consequences of his acts act either: (i)
ite in pertorming some

Onsequences of his acts. So, if a person

a dangerous injury
to be the
CxDec death thereof; or (i) expects
to be the ot his act., and in
consequer
ience
death is a likely consequence
n'Cachscquence his act; or (1
of knows that
two cases,
and his knowledge
in the
his intention in the first be laid down tor
urd t e n t ensues, homicide. However, no hard and fast rule or
can

ders the act a not is question

a
is intention
determining
of fac
A
the existen
n c e of intention.
Whether there
is thus
essential to
the otlence under this

guilty intention or knowledge

lutoxKattol,
above.
see ch l1:
AIR 1956 SC 488. For discussion on
the faces,
For n detailed Siaie of
Slbid.
G
para 5. O, more

Cr 1J 186
(SC;see also
Ands v

1519, (1976)
Jayaro v Stae a m i l Nadu AIR
of 1976 SC
171 (S0C).
Kajasthan
4sthan AIR
Mohd. Arif v
1966
AID SC 148, (1966) Cr 1J
SCC 497, (2009) Cr 1J
2789 (SC).
AS5.
State
of Urancha (2009) 1I 2008 (6)
SCALE
Kesar Sing SCC 753,
15
ate
f Haryana (2008)
573
 iminal Law

Section. 'lntent and 'knowlcdec' in s 299 postulate the exIstcncc of positive men
attitude which is of different ental
degrces.
KNOWLEDGE AS MENS REA
As has becn stated calier, the third degree of intention contemplatcd under the
actinition of culpable homicide is knowledgc. Thc third part of s 299 states ever
causcs death by doing an act.with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to ca
death. commits the oftenec of culpable homicide'. In the schemc of the section, the leasr
or minimum degrec of mental element contemplated to make an act of homicide
culpable is the knowlcdge that the act is likely to cause death.
Anowledge means consciousness. It denotes a state of conscious awarenes of certain
facts in which human mind remains inactive. It connotes a bare awareness of the
consequences of his conduct. The offender should reasonably expect thar the
consequence of his act would probably result in the death of a person, even if he did not
intend to cause the death." The word 'likely' as used in s 299 is to denote a lower degre
of likelihood, whereas the same word likely in s 300 would denote a higher degree of
likelihood of death. The word 'likely' in s 299 conveys the sense of probabiliry as
distinguished from merely possibility or probability."

ACT OF KILLING A PERSON NOT INTENDED TO BE KILLED

The first illustration to s 299 explains that even if the act of a person is not intended or
aimed at any particular person, it would still amount to culpable homicide. Illustration
d) to d (4) of s 300 also gives an example of a person randomly shooting into a crowd
and killing one of them. He is said to be guilty of murder. Both these illustrations are
examples where the offender did not have intention against any particular person. But
the same analogy would apply even in cases where the intention to kill may be in respect
of A, but the act of the person results in the death of B. Even in such an instance, the
required mens rea or intention exists and the homicide would amount to murder. It is
called transferred malice or transferred mens
rea.
But then, again intention is always a question of fact and the fact that the accused did
not intend to cause the injury he did, may be a mitigating factor. In Gurmail Singh
State of Punjab, tdhere was an
argument between B and G on the one hand and ne
acused on the other, over cracking of some indecent jokes by the accused before B3
wife. The deceased intervened to stop the two sides from fighting, The accused raisedd
barchha to give a blow to A, which fell on the
deceased. The Supreme Court hela
the accused had no
animosity
t o the deceased can be
against the deceased, even if transmission ot malice
inferred, in view of the fact that there is no evidence to s o w
thar the accused intended to cause the he inflicted, his conviction was con rtet
from s 302 to s 304, Pt II, IPC. In Kashiinjury
Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh," in which the

Jagriti
9 Devi State of Himachal lradesh
v

Jai Prakash v Stae (Delhi) (\991) 2 SCC(2009)

10 14 SCC 771, AIR 2009 SC 2869,
32, 199I (1) SCALE T14.
1Sce,1 akbuji Iliraji v Thakore Kubersing Chamansing AlR 2001 SC 228,
Madhavrao v State of Maharashtra (2010) o S a CrL
119 (SC), AlR 2000 SC 3662. (2000) Cr LJ 2389 (Bonm); Shamsher Khan v SalIC
\=*
12 kaj Pal y State
of 1Haryana (2006) 9 SCC078, 2006 (4) SCALE
13 Stase uf 456.
Maharash1ra
14 AlR 1982 SC 1466.
v Kashirao
(2003) 10 SCC 434, AIR 2003 SC.
J901
15 AlR 2001 SC 2002,
(2002) 1 SCC 71.

574
 Homicide

acCused fired shot at a particular member of the

a
adversary's party but it hit another
nerson and killed him, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of transferred malice to
hold him guilty under s 304, Pt II as he neither aimed at nor intended death of the
deceased.

PROOF OF INTENTION

Direct proof of intention is always very difficult to obtain. However, intention is

something which can be gathered and inferred from the action of the person and the
surrounding circumstances, such as motive of the accused, the nature of the attack, the
time and place of attack, the nature of weapons used, the nature of injuries caused to the
deceased and so on. These and other factors may be taken into consideration to
determine whether a person had the requisite intention.
When injuries are inflicted on vital parts of the body like the abdomen by a lethal or
sharp edged weapon, the irresistible inference is that the accused intended to kill the
16
deceased."