Culpable homicide & murder

♦ Meaning- The word “homicide” has been derived from a latin term
homi (man) and cido (cut). Thus, the word homicide literally means
killing of a human being by another human being.
♦ Every homicide is not unlawful or criminal like, death caused by a
child under the age of discretion (doli incapax), or a person of
unsound mind or caused in excise of the right of private defence.
Homicides, therefore, are of two types one lawful homicides and two
unlawful homicides.
♦ Lawful homicides are those which are covered by chapter 6 of IPC
i.e., general exceptions. Same can be further divided into excusable
homicides and justifiable homicides.
♦ The homicides that are neither justified nor

excused are culpable homicides.

♦ Chapter 16 of IPC begins with “offences affecting life” deals with

homicide offences.

Section 299, Culpable homicide-:-

♦ Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing

death, or with the intention of casing 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 fundamental and operative section dealing with culpable
 homicide is Section 299 which is defining the scope of culpable
homicide. It prescribes the minimum cut of level of input guilty mind
required for culpable homicide and the cut of line is reflected by
Clause 3 of Section 299, which says an act done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause death. So, if the input of guilty is less than the
one prescribed aforesaid then it may be any other offence including
no offence.
Section 299 uses the term “whoever causes Death”-

 The term death here denotes death of a human being. As mentioned

in Section 46 of IPC.
♦ It excludes natural death.

♦ Death of a child in mother’s womb is not a death of a human being

and accordingly shall not be culpable homicide. (S. 312 to 318)
♦ Death of a child at that stage when the birth of the child is taking
place and some part of the body of such child has come out in the
process of the birth taking place, shall be taken to be causing the
death of human being even though the child had not completely
born or the child has not started breathing. (Explanation 3 of Section
299)
♦ Death of an animal will thus not fall within the ambit of Section
299, instead same will be governed by Section 428, 429 of IPC
which deals with killing of maiming animals by mischief.
♦ To complete an offence under Section 299 thus
 death of a person is must.

The death must result as a proximate and not remute

consequence of the actus reus-
♦ What is proximate/immediate- which a person can
foresee/anticipate as an ordinary prudent man. When the connection
is broken by an intervening cause, then the liability shall not be
passed on the accused.
♦ A mere fact that the person could have been saved with adequate
medical treatment shall not be of any help to the accused and he
shall be held liable for causing the death of that person.
♦ The act must be causa causans (the immediate cause) and not
merely causa sine qua non.
Eg. Where the injury caused on the head was simple and the
deceased himself did not take it seriously and did not go the hospital
but died three weeks after the occurrence due to sepsis consequent to
the bad handling of wound the Section will not be attracted.
2. A is suffering from AIDS. Knowing the same A had sexual intercourse
with B. B dies as a result of transmission of diseases. Is A liable for B’s
death.

a) A do not cause death immediately. It takes a long period of five-ten

years. Thus, it breaks the connection due to long gap.
b) AIDS is not caused by every act of Sexual Intercourse or blood
transfusion. Hence, A is not liable for culpable homicide or murder, but
can be help d liable under Section 270 IPC.

Explanation II of 299

 “When death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes

such bodily injury shall be deemed to have cause the death,
although by resort into proper remedies and skillful treatment
death might have been prevented”
 The reason for this provision is that it is not always possible that
proper remedies and skillful treatment are within the reach of
wounded person. The accused is responsible for the natural
consequences of his conduct and the fact that the natural
consequences could have been averted by artificial means is no
answer. The fact that better medical treatment could not be
available at the local dispensary, does not affect the nature of the
offence.
 However, in a case where only simple injury was caused to
deceased. But deceased died of septic meningitis on account of
wrong remedies and neglect in treatment. In such a case it can’t be
said that the death was caused due to the actus reus of the accused.
“By doing an act with an intention to cause death”

 The word act includes omission, and series of act and series of
 omissions (S. 32, 33)
 However, the omissions must be illegal omissions (S. 43 defines
illegal)
 Actus reus must be intentional or with knowledge. Therefore, if
the actus reus is result of fraud, unsound mind etc. it is not actus
reus of the accused.
 No clear-cut proof or direct evidence of the actus reus being
intentional or with knowledge is generally available. Same relates
to the state of mind. Thus, circumstantial evidence shall be taken
into account to determine this fact.
 To facilitate the determination of the aforesaid fact two
presumptions have been evolved. a) Every person is presumed to
know the natural consequences of his actus reusb) Every person is
presumed to intend that actus reus which has caused the
consequence
 However, these are rebuttable presumptions.
 In determining the question of intention the nature of the weapon
used, the part of the body on which the blow was given, the force
and number of blows are all factors from which an inference as to
the intention can as a fact be drawn.
 Moti Singh v. State of U.P, 1964 SC, The deceased received to
gunshot wounds in his abdomen which were dangerous to life. He
was discharged from the hospital after around 20 days. He died
 and his body was cremated without any post-mortem being done.
The Court held that in order to prove the charge of the deceased’s
murder, it was necessary to establish that he had died on account
of injuries received by him. The Court further held that the
connection between the primary cause and the death should not be
too remote.
 In the case “Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979 SC” , the
deceased Rupinder Singh had teased the sister of the accused. In
retaliation, the two accused went to Rupinder’s house and shouted
that they had come to take away the sister of Rupinder Singh. In
the meantime, the cousins of Rupinder Singh intervened. One of
them was given a blow on the neck by the accused. Meanwhile,
Rupinder Singh started running towards the field. The accused
started chasing him and Rupinder Singh jumped into a well. As a
result of this, he sustained head injuries, which made him loose
consciousness and thereafter he died due to drowning. The
Supreme Court held that the accused were about 15to 20 feet from
Rupinder Singh, when he jumped into the well. There was no
evidence to show that the accused drove Rupinder Singh into the
well or that they left him no option but to jump into the well. Under
these circumstances, it was held, that the accused could not have
caused the death of Rupinder Singh, and hence they were entitled
to be acquitted of the charge of murder.
 ♦ With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.
♦ It means an intention to cause a particular injury, which in turn is
likely to cause death.
♦ The difference between the two expressions intention to cause death
and intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
is the difference of degree in criminality. The latter is a lower degree
of criminality than the former. Since, in both the cases the object is
the same the law does not make any distinction in punishment.
With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death-
♦ Knowledge means consciousness. It denotes a state of
consciousness awareness of certain facts in which human mind
remains inactive. The offender should reasonably expect that the
consequences of his act would probably result in the death of a
person, even if he did not intend to cause the death.
♦ “Ajmer Singh v. State, 1955 Punjab”, when the accused fired his
gun in the air to scare away the opposite party and in the act one stray
pellet caused gunshot wound to a person which proved fatal, the
accused must be deemed to have caused the death of the deceased
with the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause death but
without knowing that the act was so imminently dangerous that it
must in all probability cause death. The accused was thus held guilty
under Section 304, part II.
♦ “Beny Francis v. Kerala, 1991 High Court” Certain young boys
were grazing cattle on the bank of river. Some of them including the
accused were jumping into the river. Deceased was sitting on the side
as he was not knowing swimming. Accused and other dragged him
the bridge and was pushed into the river. They jumped to save
him. He died due to drowning. They were prosecuted for causing
death by rash and negligent act. Trial Court convicted him. High
Court upheld but made an observation that this is a fit case of
culpable homicide not amounting under Sec. 299(3).
♦ Sarabjit Singh v. Punjab, 1984 SC”, Sarabjit Singh had an
altercation with the family of the deceased. In the process of that
altercation he lifted a young child of four years from the other
family raised him above his head and through him on the ground.
The ground though not of concrete but was very hard. Court held
that it is a fit case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
under Section 299(3) of IPC.
Explanation 1 of 299
♦ “A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring
under a disease, disorder or bodily infirmity, and thereby
accelerates the death of the other shall be deemed to have cause his
death”
 The Court must be satisfied

a) that the death at the time when it occurs is not caused Solely by
the disease, and
b) that it is caused by the bodily injury to the extent that it is
accelerated by such injury
c) the accused must know that condition of the deceased was such
that his act was likely to cause death
d) When the intervening cause which has broken the connection is
intentional Actus Reus of another person then the liability will
pass on that other person. The accused will only be held liable
for attempt.
Eg. A gives injury on vital part of B. B will not survive for more
than two-three days. C comes and cuts throat of B. C is liable for
murder. A is liable for attempt.