UTTARA UNIVERSITY

ASSIGNMENT
ON
LAW OF CRIMES PART- II
COURSE CODE: LLB-803
Topic: “Murder is a Culpable homicide. On the other hand every Culpable
homicide is not Murder”

Submitted to
Syeda Afroza Zerin
Associate Professor & Chairperson
Department of Law
Uttara University

Submitted by
Md. Arif Hossain
LL.B.(Hons) 8th Semester
Batch:43(B) Summer,20
ID: 2181261064
Uttara University
 Submission date :

Introduction :

All murders are culpable homicide but not all culpable homicides are murders” this is a very
common phrase used to establish a difference between culpable homicide and murder .In the
scheme of the Penal Code, Culpable Homicide is genus and Murder its specie. All murder is
culpable homicide but not vice- versa. Section 299 and Section 300 IPC deal with the
definition of Culpable Homicide and murder.

Concept of culpable homicide

The word homicide has been derived from the Latin word ‘homo’ which means a man and
‘caedere’ which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing of a human being. All
cases of homicide are not culpable (punishable). Law distinguishes between lawful and
unlawful homicide. For instances, killing in self-defense in pursuance of a lawful authority or
by reason of mistake of fact is not culpable. Likewise, if death is caused by accident or
misfortune or while doing an act in good faith and without any criminal intention for the
benefit of the person killed, the man is excused from criminal responsibility for homicide

Provision regarding culpable homicide:

Culpable Homicide is defined under section 299 of the Penal Code, 1860. The section which
defines culpable homicide says that whoever causes death by doing an act either 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.

That means whoever causes death by doing one of the following acts is called culpable
homicide

Intention of causing death;

Intentionally causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death;

Doing act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death.

1. Yash is diagnosed with terminal illness and needs certain drugs to live from day to day.
Aman confines him in a room and denies him his medication. As a result, Yash dies. Aman is
guilty of culpable homicide.

. X lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. A believing the ground to be firm,
trends on it falls in and is killed. H has committed the offences of culpable homicide.

Ingredients of culpable homicide: Based upon the above definition it may be said that
following are the essential elements of Culpable Homicide-

a. Death: The section requires that death must result. 'Death has been defined under
section 46 of the Code as denoting the death of a human being, unless the contrary
appears from the context. Death must be caused by doing an act.

In the case of Sate vs. Ashraf Ali it was held that When death is probable it is culpable
homicide and hen death is most probable it is murder. Mere killing of a person is not murder
or culpable homicide, but it is so when caused with certain guilty intention.

b. Doing an act

The act should be of such a nature that it would put to peril someone’s life or damage
someone’s life to such an extent that the person would die. In most cases the act would
involve a high degree of violence against the person. For instance, stabbing a person in vital
organs, shooting someone at point blank range, or administering poison include instances
which would constitute culpable homicide. The section says causing death by doing an act,
so given the special circumstances certain acts which may not involve extreme degree of
violence but may be sufficient to cause someone’s death. For example starving someone may
not require violence in the normal usage of the term, but may cause a person’s death.

c. Intention or Knowledge:
1There must be an intention of any of the following- Intention of causing death-The doer of
the act must have intended to cause death. As seen in Illustration 1, the doer wanted or
expected someone to die. It is important to note that intention of causing death does not
necessarily mean intention of causing death of the person who actually died. If a person does
an act with an intention of killing B but A is killed instead, he is still considered to have the
intention.

Intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death-The intention of the
offender may not have been to cause death but only an injury that is likely to cause the death
of the injured. For example, A might intended only to hit on the skull of a person so as to
make him unconscious, but the person dies. In this case, the intention of the person was only
to cause an injury but the injury is such that it is likely to cause death of the person. Thus, he
is guilty of Culpable Homicide. However, if A hits B with a broken glass. A did not know
that B was haemophilic. B bleeds to death. A is not guilty of Culpable Homicide but only of
grievous hurt because he neither had an intention to kill B nor he had any intention to cause
any bodily ii. injury as is likely to cause death

In the case of Bander Ali vs. State it was held that- death was caused without premeditation.
Act must have been done with the knowledge that such an act may cause death - When a
person does an act which he knows that it has a high probability to cause death, he is
responsible for the death which is caused as a result of the act. For example, A knows that
loosening the brakes of a vehicle has a high iii.

Act must have been done with the knowledge that such an act may cause death - when
person does an act which he knows that it has a high probability to cause death, he is
responsible tor the death which is caused as a result of the act. For example, A knows that
loosening the brakes of a vehicle has a high probability of causing death of someone. If B
rides such a bike and if he dies, A will be responsible for B's death.

In the Sreenarayan Case of (1947) facts and observation of the Court was- A struck B on the
head a single blow with a piece of firewood. B fell down bleeding from her nose and became
senseless. A and his wife W thought that B was dead and so they placed B on the wooden
pyre and set fire to it which caused B's death. A and W were convicted under this section.
On appeal by A and W it was held that the appellants were not liable to be convicted under
S.302, as they had no intention to cause the death but were liable to be convicted under
S.304, as they acted with gross negligence and when an act was done with gross negligence
law imputed to the offenders the necessary knowledge.

The explanations have been attached to the section 299. These have been discussed below.

Explanation 1-

A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or
bodily infirmity. and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have
caused his death. Explanation 2.-Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who
causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to
proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3.-The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But
it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that
child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely
born.

Murder……….

The term murder is derived from the Germanic word morthh, which means seCret killing.
Murder is when one is slain with a man's will, and with malice or forethought. Murder is
unlawful homicide with malice aforethought. Murder is a more serious oftence than the
culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is a genus, whereas murder is a species. An offence
cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the definition of the culpable homicide.

Provision
Section 300 of the PC defines the 'murder thus:

Firstly: 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

Secondly: 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

Thirdly: If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be indicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or,

Fourthly: 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.

For example, A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to
cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in
consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of
health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as
would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A,
although he may intend to cause bodily injury, 1s not guilty of murder, if he did not intend
to cause death or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.

In the case of Md. Abdul Majid vs. State it was held- The weapon used uvas a lethal one and
the injury grave in nature was caused on the vital part of the body. The act was done with
the intention of causing such bodily injury intended to be inflicted as was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. It falls clearly within the 1st, 2nd & 3rd clauses of
section 300 Penal Code.

Essentials of the offence of murder: The essentials of murder are as follows-

1. If the act is done with the intention of causing death.

2. If the act 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.
3. If the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. If the act is done with the knowledge, 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 such act is committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or injury.

Illustration

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

A without any excuse fires a loaded canon into the crowd of persons and kills one of them. A
is guilty of murder
Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1862

Culpable homicide amounts to murder when the act is done with the intention of causing
death but in the cases mentioned below this principle doesn’t apply. The following acts can
amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Exceptions 1-5 in the (d) and (f)
illustrations of section 300 of the IPC define conditions when culpable homicide is not
amounting to murder, these are as follows-

 It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if it is committed by a person who

 It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder when the offender causes the death
of someone while exercises his right of private defense of person and property in good
faith

 It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if a public servant causes someone’s

 It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if a person causes the death of

 It is not culpable homicide amounting to murder when a person suffers death with his
own consent when he is above 18 years of age.
Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder

According to the definition provided under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, there are
majorly 3 essential ingredients to prove that the person is liable for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. These are-

1. The intention of causing death.

2. The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

3. With the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death.

lustration

 A not knowing that D has a tumour in his brain, hits him hard on the head with a
cricket bat, with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that death is
likely to be caused. 

 D dies because of the bursting of the tumour. 

 A is liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Case Law

It was held in the case of Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997) that Section 299 of the
Indian Penal Code is the genus and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is the species.
Hence, there are no independent sections regarding culpable homicide not amounting to
murder it is the part of Section 300 of IPC which defines Murder. 

Herein, the court observed that:

“For deciding the proper punishment which is proportionate to the current offense, IPC has
divided culpable homicide into three degrees. First is the gravest form which is Murder it is
defined under section 300 of IPC, the second is the culpable homicide of the second degree
which is punishable under Section 304 part 1 of IPC and Third is the lowest degree of
culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 304 part 2 of IPC.” 
Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder

According to the definition provided under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, there are
majorly 4 essential ingredients to prove that the person is liable for culpable homicide
amounting to murder. These are-

1. The intention of causing death.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

  X shoots Z with a shotgun on the point-blank range with intention to cause death,
and Z dies subsequently. X is liable of Murder.

  X knows that Z has a tumour in his brain and he hits him again and again with a bat
on his head with the intention of causing death, and Z dies subsequently. X is liable
for Murder.

 X starts firing a machine gun in a crowded mall with an intention of causing death,
and subsequently killing 10 people. X is liable for Murder

difference between culpable homicide and murder. It talks about the point which I’ve
already proved before that culpable homicide is the genus and murder is the species.  The
major difference between them is that murder is a more aggravated form of culpable
homicide. In murder there is no presence of ambiguity that the act may or may not kill as it
is present in culpable homicide, looking at Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code where there
is clearly mentioned that:
“Act done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury which is LIKELY
to cause death or having the knowledge that he can LIKELY by his act can cause death, he’ll
be committing the offense of culpable homicide”.

If you notice the multiple occurrences of the term “LIKELY” showcases that there is an
element of ambiguity that the act of the accused may or may not kill the person, is present.
Whereas, in the case of murder which is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code
there is no such mention of words as “likely” which shows that there is no chance of
ambiguity left on behalf of the accused, the accused is for sure that his act will defiantly
cause death.

As mentioned by Sir James Stephen, it is extremely difficult to distinguish between Culpable

Case Law

Through the case of Reg. v. Govinda, a clear distinction was drawn between culpable
homicide and murder. According to the facts of the case, there was a quarrel between a
husband and a wife in a fit of anger the husband knocked the wife. The wife became
unconscious and the husband in order to wake the wife punched her with closed palms but
unfortunately, the wife died because of internal bleeding in her brain. Herein, Melvil, J, held
that the man was liable under Section 299 of IPC because clearly there was no intention to
cause death and the act was not grave enough to cause death on the spot.

Punishment for murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder : section 302 lays
down that death or imprisonment for life is the punishment provided for murder. Section
304 lays down that in case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, if the act by
which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is transportation for life or transportation of
either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and fine but if the act is done
with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death
or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine, or with both.
Conclusion : Culpable homicide’ and ‘Murder’ are two overlapping yet distinct offences. The
distinction between the two is in the ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ of the culprit in committing
the crime.

Though on plain reading of the provisions, it appears that the cases can be conveniently
classified into the two categories but when it comes to the actual application of these two
sections in a given case, the courts are often confronted with the dilemma of culpable
homicide and murder.

A general line, however, cannot be drawn. Hence, every case must be looked into depending
on the facts and circumstances. Hence, the role of the judge becomes very important. One
cannot expect him or her to be precise all the time as a human is meantto err but a judge
deciding such a sensitive case must leave no stone unturned in analysing all the nuances of
the case and then come to any conclusion. Since “A person is what he thinks”, the courts
needs to spy the minds of the accused and by applying certain logics and theories with
parameters determine as to whether the person intended to cause the death. Such
determination has to be arrived at after extensive observation. Since there is no radical
difference between the two offences except the degreeof intention and knowledge (being
higher in case of murder), a common line of distinction cannot be drawn. Hence, it will
depend from case to case. As noted above, it’s the judge who plays the most crucial role in
such cases. Hence, it is quite obvious that such decisions do attract lot of scrutiny by lawyers,
judges, law scholars and professors, as it’s all about the facts of the case and nothing else.
Since it’s the facts that will determine the gravity of the offence, the burden of presenting
good arguments before the court will be borne by the lawyers representing the two sides, as
to how well articulate and precise are there arguments in support of their clients, irrespective
of which side they are representing. Also, another important postulate would be as to how
the law or Code dealing with the crimes regards the two offences as distinct and what the
criterion for distinguishing them is.