Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

Indian Penal Code

Submitted by:

Yash Goyal

UID- SM0118062

BA.,LLB (Hons.)

2nd Year
Semester – 4th

Faculty In-Charge
Mrs. Nikita barooah

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam

Guwahati
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 AIM AND OBJECTIVE

1.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.4 TABLE OF CASES
1.5 TABLE OF STATUTES

2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE: MEANING & DEFINITION

2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER &

PUNISHMENT

4. ELEMENTS OF SECTION-304

5.SECTION 304 – WHEN INTENTION IS BASIS FOR LIABILITY.

6. SECTION 304 – WHEN KNOWLEDGE IS THE BASIS.

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 1. INTRODUCTION

Homicide is the killing of a human being by a human being. It is either (a) Lawful or
(b) Unlawful. Lawful homicide or simple homicide, includes several cases falling
under the General Exceptions. And Unlawful Homicide includes Culpable Homicide
not amounting to Murder, Murder, Rash or Negligent, Sucide. Punishment for
Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder refers that whoever commits culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine, 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 or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that is likely to cause death,
but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death.

1.1 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF WORK

The Aims and Objectives of this work are as follows -
• To understand the meaning and definition of culpable homicide.
• To look into the essentials of what constitutes an offence of culpable homicide
• To analyse the punishments related to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
and study different sections related to it
• To throw light upon various relevant case laws.

1.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has employed the Doctrinal Method of Explanatory Research Design
for the in- depth study of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Explanatory Research Design: This method has been employed in order to understand,
analyse and comprehensively explain the nature and concept of Culpable homicide
For the collection of information for this research work, secondary sources of data
such as books, articles and pre-set norms and case laws have been referred.

1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal; The Indian Penal Code, 35th Edition –

This classic, is a comprehensive section-wise commentary on the Indian Penal Code.
This book is an indispensable reference for judges, lawyers, research scholars,
students, judicial and police training academies (national and state), police
departments, etc. Relevant judgements and legal provisos have been provided with in
details.
2. K. D. Gaur; Textbook on Indian Penal Code; 6th Edition –
Text Book on the Indian Penal Code by Professor K D Gaur, a distinguished scholar
and an eminent jurist of International repute is a classic work in criminal law. With
the help of examples, illustrations and elucidatory notes complex subjects have been
explained in simple style so that readers could grasp the subjects easily. Excellent
Annexures dealing with the rights of the accused, victims of crime and guidelines to
effective study and understanding of criminal law have enhanced the worth and utility
of the book.

1.4 TABLE OF CASES

S.NO CASE NAME CITATION

1. Keshoram v. State of Assam 1978 Cri. L.J 1089 (S.C.).
2. A. Gopaiahv v. State of A.P 1978 Cri. L.J. 798 (A.P)
3. U.P. v. Premi 2003 Cri. L.J. 1554(S.C)
4. Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana 1999 Cri. L.J. 1634
5. U.P. v. Lakhmi A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1007

6. State of Rajasthan v. Raj Narayan A.I.R 1998 S.C. 2060.

7. Rampal Singh v. State of U. P 2012) IIICri.L.J.3765(S.C.
2013)
8.
Sukumar Roy v. State of West Benga 2006 Cri. L.J. 4776(S.C.)
9. Tholanv. State of Tamil Nadu 1984 Cri. L.J. 478 (S.C.)
10. SandhyaJadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2006 Cri. L.J. 2111 (S.C.)

1.5 TABLE OF STATUTES

S.NO TITLE
1. INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
 2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE: MEANING& DEFINITION

According to Section 299. Of Indian penal Code Whoever cause 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 act to
cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
A person who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be
deemed to have caused his death. 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 skillful treatement the death might have been
prevented. 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 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.

Culpable Homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide. It is the causing of death by
doing:

(i). An act with the intention of causing death.

(ii). An act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
or
(iii). An act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
 3. CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER &
PUNISHMENT

According to Section 304 Whoever commits culpable not amounting to murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by
which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely
to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death.
This section provides punishment for two separate degrees of culpable homicide
depending upon the intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death
under para I and knowledge that the act is likely to cause death under para II. In a case
the accused, during a quarrel lifted and threw on the ground from some distance with
sufficient force one D who was an old man with an enlarged and floppy heart. D’s
ribs were fractured and he died of rupture of the heart. It was held that the accused
was liable under section 325 for causing grievous hurt and not under para II of section
304 because, he had no intention or knowledge to cause death1. In Keshoram v. State
of Assam,2 the deceased D entered the land of the accused and assaulted the
co-accused with a lathi which provoked the accused and he purporting to act in
self-defence assaulted the deceased and caused his death. As none of the appellants
received any injury the Supreme Court held that the appellants had exceeded the
rights of private defence and that they were guilty of an offence under section 304,
Part II of the Code. It is submitted that in this case no reasons were given as to why
conviction under part I would have been more appropriate. In A. Gopaiahv. State of
A.P.,3as a result of a sudden quarrel accused beat the deceased with the stones which
were lying there. It was held that they could be presumed to have known that the
injuries caused by them are likely to cause death of the deceased though each of them

1
Putti Lal, 1969 Cri. L.J. 531..
2
1978 Cri. L.J 1089 (S.C.).
3
1978 Cri. L.J. 798 (A.P)
while beating the deceased with stones did not know that they were causing fractures
of the ribs. Hence they would be liable under section 304.
In State of U.P. v. Premi, 4
respondents 1 and 2, their father and another person
entered the house of Raghubir (PW-3) at about mid night of the 15th-16th January
1977 while he was sleeping with his wife and children. After removing quilt, the
respondents held fast PW-3 and hit him on the head with the butt of a country made
pistol. When Budhwati wife of PW-3 Raghubir came to save him, she was also
assaulted with the butt of pistol. On hearing their cries Mathuri(PW-4) and Balwant
living in the same compound came whereupon the accused ran away. PW-3 Raghubir
and his wife was assaulted because PW-3 was cited as a prosecution witness against
the respondents and their father in the case of murder of one Rajinder son of
premSahai where they were accused. The policestation is at about 9 kms. From the
place of incident, the FIR was lodged at 8:30 a.m. by PW-3 and Budhwati died at
about 9 p.m. on 16th January. 1977.
The trail was held and the Sessions Court convicted the three accused on appreciation
of evidence of PW-3, the police official and the doctor. The fourth person was not
identified and thus could not be apprehended. The source of light for witness to
identify accused was not mentioned in the FIR but the investigating officer had
mentioned the existence of bulb in the room.The husband of deceased made
categorical statement that he identified the accused/ assailants.
The High Court reversed the judgement of trial court and acquitted the accused.
Therefore State preferred an appeal to Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that only a single blow was inflicted
on the head by itself is not enough to alter the conviction from section 302 to section
304. As for the question of light for enabling PW-3 to identify the assailants is
concerned the court held that the presence of bulb was mentioned in the site plan
prepared by police. The statement of PW-3 that electric connection was taken a year
before relate to date of incident and not date of statement. The inference that he had
admitted about non-availability of electricity is not proper. Further, mere omission to
mention about light in the FIR or in the statement under section-161, Criminal
Procedure Code was wholly inconsequential. The fact that eyewitness stated that
deceased was hit on the head by butt of the pistol and doctor finding injury inflicted

4
2003 Cri. L.J. 1554(S.C)
by sharp edged weapon but also stating that injuries in question could be inflicted
with the butt of revolver and mention of use of butt of pistol in FIR which was
recorded promptly cumulatively show that the medical evidence cannot be so
inconsistent with the ocular evidence as to believe the ocular evidence. Therefore
contradictions in injuries and weapon used are not of much importance so as not to
justify conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of
appeal the third accused died, the appeal thus abated against him but the other two
accused were convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
 4. ELEMENTS OF SECTION- 304

4.1 Section 304, Part-I:

In Jai Bhagwanv. State of Haryana,5 the incident arouse out of land disputes between
the accused and deceased. The two appellant Jai Bhagwan(A-1) and Sunil (A-3) were
charged to have caused the death, by murderous assault by deadly weapon, of their
uncle Prithvi on exhortation given by their mother. Appellant No.2 Anil attempted to
murder Wazir Singh (PW-6) his daughter-in-law, Smt. Krishna(PW-8) and his
daughter Smt.Chander (PW-5) went to the land to irrigate the same. The deceased
party told A-1 that he would have the turn of water and irrigate the land after
settlement of dispute A-1 could do it. This was objected by A-1 who stated that he
would settle the matter right then. A-1 stated abusing the deceased and during
altercation his mother Smt. Parwari exhorted the accused to give a blow. A-1 who
who was armed withballam dealt a blow with it on the head of the deceased. A-3 gave
a blow with knife on the face of deceased who fell down and A-2 dealt a blow with
gandasi. Others caused several injuries on his body. In the process PW-5, PW-8 and
PW-6 were also injured the deceased and party amounts only to criminal trespass
within the meaning of section 441, Indian Penal Code. Therefore the right of the
accused extended only to causing of harm other than death. Accused person who
were already deceased. It was not a case of free fight and it cannot be said as that they
did not intend to cause the injuries inflicted by them. They exceeded their right of
private defence of property under section – 104, Indian Penal Code and therefore
accused A-1 and A-3 were rightly convicted under Part I of section 304 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but accused A-2 who was convicted under section
326, Indian Penal Code by the High Court was acquitted because he acted in the
exercise of right of private defence of property under section 104 which justify any
harm other than death.
In State of U.P. v. Lakhmi,6 the respondent was charged with the
offence of murder. The trial court held him guilty under section 302, Indian Penal
Code. But the High Court acquitted the respondent owing to non-reliability of

5
1999 Cri. L.J. 1634
6
A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1007.
witnesses. The accused admitted the fact that he murdered his wife but High Court did
not attach any importance to it. The Supreme Court on examination found that
because the accused had seen one of the prosecution witnesses near his wife which
enraged him and he murdered his wife. The Supreme Court allowed the benefit of
grave and sudden provocation to the accused and held him liable under section 304,
Indian Penal Code and not under section 302, of Indian Penal Code.
In State of Rajasthan v. Raj Narayan7, the accused and the complainant were
neighbours and had dispute over boundary wall. On the date of incident quarrel took
place between accused and complainant. The accused brought a knife from his house
and aimed at complainant. It was held that upon considering the fact, the accused had
no intention to cause death of complainants brother who had intervened in the quarrel,
hence the conviction of the accused under section 304, Part I would be proper.
In Rampal Singh v. State of U. P.8 accused and deceased were related with each other.
There was no animosity between them. Incident took police over demolition of the
accused of construction made by the deceased to prevent garbage being thrown in his
land. Accused after heated exchange of words climbed on roof with gun. He warned
deceased to keep away from him. On challenge given by deceased accused fired one
shot at lower part of deceased. Incident was thus without premeditation and in spate
of anger. Accused had no intention to kill but being a member of armed force had
knowledge that it may cause death. Accused thus intended to cause injury, which
could result in death. He was held liable to be convicted under section 304 Part I and
not in section 300 of I.P. Code.
In Sukumar Roy v. State of West Bengal9on 11-8-1984, while the deceased
PrafullaNayak was collecting seedlings from his land, the accused PhaniBhusan Roy,
his son the appellant Sukumar Roy, his wife Urmila Roy and Tarani Roy, the wife of
his elder brother entered into the land with lathi, bhali etc. in their hands and
altercation took place between the parties when Phani Roy told the deceased that he
had purchased the land and as such he would cultivate the land. In the course of
alteration accused Phani struck Prafulla on his head with lathi and his son Sukumar hit
with bhali which pierced the abdomen of Prafulla. The local persons on hearing hue

7
A.I.R 1998 S.C. 2060.
8
2012) III Cri. L.J. 3765(S.C.)
9
2006 Cri. L.J. 4776(S.C.)
and cry rushed to the place of occurrence but the accused persons ran away in the
mean time. Medical examination revealed 4 inches deep wound in abdomen.
The Supreme Court held that the deceased and his men were unarmed and there was
no provocation on their part and intention of accused to kill or cause injury as is likely
to cause death is clearly established by nature of injury caused to the deceased by
piercing ballam 4 inches deep in abdomen. Therefore, conviction under Section 304,
Part I read with Section 34 was held to be proper.

Section 304, Part II-

In Tholanv. State of Tamil Nadu 10
the accused started remonstrations using fifthly
language against certain organisers of a chit fund who had no connection with the
deceased in front of the house of the deceased. The deceased came out of this house
and asked the accused to go away. The accused on spur of moment gave only one
blow with knife to the deceased and pushed him to some distance. The accused could
not be attributed on these facts of requisite intention to commit murder through he
could be attributed with knowledge that he was likely to cause injury which was likely
to cause death. He was held guilty under this part of section.
In Jagat Singh v. State a dispute arose between the appellants and the family of
11

the deceased while watching television. Next day when the deceased with his family
was going to lodge a report to the police, the accused attacked them at bus stand of the
village. The deceased was given a good beating and when he fell down on the ground,
the appellant sat on his chest and he with one Subh Ram twisted the neck of the
deceased. He was taken to the hospital where doctors declared him dead. The accused
were held guilty under this provision because in the circumstances it could be said
safely that they had the knowledge that their act was likely to cause death although
they had no intention to kill him.
In SandhyaJadhav v. State of Maharashtra,12 the accused persons are tenants of
complainant landlord. Landlord demanded rent from tenants and the accused persons
assaulted the landlord. When nephew of landlord tried to intervene he was also given
knife below resulting his death. The Supreme Court held that exception 4 to section
300 has full application and conviction of the accused under section 302 is liable to be

10
1984 Cri. L.J. 478 (S.C.)
11
1984 Cri. L.J. 1551 (Delhi)
12
2006 Cri. L.J. 2111 (S.C.)
altered to section 304, Part II as neither there was no intention to kill nor injuries
inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There was
only knowledge that injury was likely to cause death. It was further pointed out that a
solitary blow causing death does not always rule out applicability of Section 302. But
fact situation has to be considered in each case.
 5. SECTION 304 -When intention is basis for liability

The connection between the ‘act’ and the death caused thereby must be direct and
distinct; and though not immediate it must not be too remote. If the nature of the
connection between the act and the death is in itself obscure, or if it is obscured by the
action of concurrent causes, or if the interval of time between the death and the act is
too long, the above condition is not fulfilled. But where as many as 34 injuries had
been caused to the deceased with axe and sticks and some of which had damaged the
kidney’s and lungs and some resulted in compound fracture the intention to kill could
be easily inferred from the number and nature of injuries caused13. Where bodily
injury sufficient to cause death is actually caused it is immaterial to go into the
question as to whether the accused had intention to cause death or knowledge that
the act will cause death14. Where a constable fired five shots in succession at another
constable resulting in his death, it was held that it would be native to suggest that he
had neither any intention to kill nor any knowledge that injuries sufficient to kill in
ordinary course of nature would not follow. His act squarely fell in clauses 2,3 and 4
of S. 300, I.P.C., i.e., culpable homicide amounting to , murder. Where a person for
his audacity in complaining against the thana staff to the Superintendent of Police was
falsely arrested in a dacoity case and thereafter mercilessely beaten at the police
station which resulted in his death and the Doctor gave clear evidence that there were
19 injuries on various parts of body of the deceased and these injuries caused his
death, the case clearly fell within clause secondly of S.300 and as such the Daroga
and the constables could be held guilty under S. 302 but as the Sessions Judge
convicted them only under S.304- Part-II, I.P.C., and the State did not file any appeal
against that order of the Sessions Judge though it did file an appeal 1. 2006 Cri. L.J.
2111 (S.C.) against the outright acquittal of the accused by the High Court, the
Supreme Court in setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court
resorted the conviction under S. 304- Part-II, I.P.C., though it felt that it was a clear
case of murder. In finding out whether there was the requisite intention or not, the
court has not to go merely by the part of the body where the blow fell, but also the
circumstances and the background of the offence and also the ferocity of the attack.
The accused was near his shop. Over a trival quarrel in the dim light of the hour he

13
Laxman, 1974 Cr L.J. 1271:A.I.R 1974 SC 1803
14
State of Bihar v. Pasupati Singh, 1973 Cr. L.J. 1832
inflicted a single knife which fell upon chest causing death. There was no attempt to
cause any further injury. The Supreme Court held that para 3 of S.300 was not
applicable. The case would be within S.300 was not applicable. The case would be
within S.304 Part II because at best it could only be said that the accused had
knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death.
 6. SECTION- 304 When knowledge is the basis.

Knowledge is a strong word and imports a certainty and not merely a probability.
Where a person caused injury in the abdomen with a knife, it was held that though the
intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death could not be
attributed to him, this knowledge was attributable to him that an injury by knife into
abdomen was likely to cause death and, therefore, his act amounted to causing
culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part-II of S. 30415. The
nature and number of injuries and their location as well as the “weapon” used lead to
conclude that to a reasonable person, an attack of the nature launched by the appellant
on Dalip Singh could cause his death. While it may be difficult to delve into the mind
of the attacker to decode his intentions, knowledge of the consequences of his actions
are likely to cause the death. He would, therefore, be guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and liable to be sentenced under the second part of Section 304
of the IPC. Where the victim was caught hold of by two accused persons and the third
inflicted five to six dagger wounds, the Supreme Court held that the conviction could
not be converted from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.16
Where the accused inflicted injury by piercing a sharp edged weapon into the heart of
his victim, resulting into his death and the witnesses also testified that the accused
uttered the words before inflicting the injury “ of doing away with him”, the court
said that the intention to kill the deceased could be inferred17.

15
TakhajiHiraji v. ThakoreKubersingChamansing, AIR 2001 SC 2328
16
BahadurNaik v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 1582(2000) 9 SCC 153
17
KattaRamadu v. State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 2428
 CONCLUSION

At last I want to conclude that a murder is a culpable homicide in which death is

caused with the one of the following must hold true- i) intention of causing death.ii)
intention of causing such bodily injury which is likely to cause death of the person,
and this is known to offender. And the person whoever commits culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall
also be liable to fine, if the act by which death is caused is done with intention of
causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
 BIBLOGRAHY

BOOKS-
1. Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, “The Indian Penal Code”, LexisNexis, 34thEdition,
Reprint 2014.
2. Surya Narayan Mishra, “The Indian Penal Code”, Central Law Publications,
Allahabad, 19th Edition, Reprint 2013
3. K. D. Gaur; Textbook on Indian Penal Code; 6th Edition

JUDGEMENT DATABASES –

• SCC Online
• Supreme Today
• Indian Kanoon