Chapter Five

Culpable Homicide and Murder

5.1 Introduction
Culpable Homicide in the most simple understanding refers to taking the life of a person.
The term constitutes of two words, culpable which refers to the mental element and homicide
which refers to the physical element Culpable denotes a blameworthy state of mind and
homicide refers to killing a person. Thus culpable homicide refers to taking life of another
person, where the act has been done with criminal intent.

5.2 Culpable Homicide

Culpable Homicide is defined in
Section 299 of the IPC. If you study the definition you
shall find that the definition stresses both on the physical and mental element, where an act is
committed which is done with the intention of causing death, or with such knowledge that the
act which he or she is going to undertake is going to kill someone, or causes such bodily or
physical injury which will lead to a persons death. Also read the explanations to the Section
which are actually clarifications to the Section.

Explanation One: Tells us that where knowingly a person accelerates someones death in
such as situation it is considered culpable homicide.
Example: Y is diagnosed with terminal illness and needs certain drugs to live from day to
day. X confines him in a room and denies him his medication as a result of which Y dies. X is
guilty of Culpable Homicide.

299. Culpable homicide Whoever causes 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 such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

www.clatpossible.com

57


Explanation Two: Tells us that where a person inflicts such bodily injury on someone and
the latter dies because of such injury, it will not be an excuse that if the person had received
medical attention his life would have been saved.
Example: Ganda mows over a pedestrian deliberately. The pedestrian bleeds on the road and
no one helps him and he dies as a result of Gandas actions. Ganda cannot take the excuse
that if the pedestrian had taken medical treatment at the right time, the pedestrian would have
lived and there would be no culpable homicide

Explanation Three: Tells us that abortion does not constitute culpable homicide.
However if any part of the child is outside the womb, and the child is then killed, it
constitutes culpable homicide. A word of caution, however, infanticide and abortion on the
basis that the womb is bearing a female child is a criminal offence in India.
Culpable Homicide can happen by commission or by omission, i.e. by an overt or conscious
act or failure to act, by which a person is, deprived of his/her life. Now let us study the
ingredients in detail.
5.3 Ingredients of Culpable Homicide
5.3.1 Acts
The Act should be of such a nature that it would put to peril someones life or damage
someones 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. Instances such stabbing a person in vital
organs, shooting

Section 299,IPC, 1860(Cont.) 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 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

www.clatpossible.com

58

someone at point blank range, administering poison would include instances which would
constitute culpable homicide.
However this is not always the rule and there are exceptions to this rule. Remember the
section says causes 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 someones
death. For example, starving someone may not require violence in the normal usage of the
term, but may cause a persons death.
The Section also covers administration of bodily injury which is likely to cause death.
5.3.2 Intention
Sometimes one is required to do certain dangerous acts, even in everyday life where there is a
risk of death or causing hurt to such an extent that a person may die. Mundane things such as
driving possess the potential of taking someones life. The question however is was the act
committed with the intention of causing death. Thus where you push someone for a joke
and the person falls on his head has a brain injury and dies, there was no intention of causing
death but when you pushed the person deliberately with the idea that the person falls and
dies, in that case the act is with the intention of causing death
To prove intention in acts where there is bodily injury is likely to cause death, the act has to
be can be of two types.  Firstly where bodily injury itself is done in a fashion which cause
death. For example bludgeoning someone on the head repeatedly with a blunt instrument. 
Secondly

Illustrations to Section 299, IPC, 1860: (a) A 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. Z believing the
ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely
to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence;
but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill
and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing
an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death
by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death

www.clatpossible.com

59

in situations where there are injuries and there are intervening events between the injuries and
the death

provided the delay is not so blatant, one needs to prove that injuries were

administered with the intention of causing death.

5.3.3 Knowledge
Knowledge is different from intention to the extent that where a person may not have the
intention to commit an act which kills, he knows that the act which he commits will take
someones life or is likely to take someones life will be considered having the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death. For example, a doctor uses an infected syringe
knowingly on a patient thereby infecting him with a terminal disease. The act by itself will
not cause death, but the doctor has knowledge that his actions will lead to someones death.
5.4 Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder

Section 300 deals with Culpable Homicide amounting to murder. In other words the
Section states that culpable homicide is murder in certain situations. This makes us come to
two conclusions, namely:
 For an act to be classified as murder it must first meet all the conditions of culpable
homicide.
 Secondly, all acts of murder are culpable homicide, but all acts of culpable
homicides are not murder. Pictorially speaking:Section 300, IPC, 1860. 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, orSecondly- 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 inflicted 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.

www.clatpossible.com

60

Murder

Culpable Homicide

Now, let us study the situations in which culpable homicide does amount to murder. Section
300 states, that except for situations states (which do not concern us as of now) culpable
homicide is murder in four situations:
5.4.1 When an act is done with the intention of causing death
The degree of intention required is very high for murder. There must be intention present and
the intention must be to cause the death of the person, not only harm or grievous hurt without
the intention to cause death.
Instances would include:
 Shooting someone at point blank range.
 Stabbing someone in the hurt
 Hanging someone by the neck till he dies
 Strapping a bomb on someone
 Administering poison to someone.

Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder. (b) 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, is 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.

www.clatpossible.com

61

Remember the act must be accompanied with the intention to cause death.
5.4.2 Inflicting of bodily injury which the offender knows is likely to cause death
The second situation covers instances where the offender has special knowledge about the
victims condition and causes harm in such a manner which causes death of the person. Look
at this part of Section 300 very carefully. It states that the offender knows likely to be the
cause of death
Instances would include:
 Sundar is a hemophilic patient. Bandar knows this and cuts him in multiple
places, which if carried out on an ordinary person would not have cost him his
life.
 Lolo is suffering from jaundice. Bebo knows this and slips in alcohol in Lolos
medicine in order to rupture Lolos liver so Lolo dies. Lolo dies as a result of
consuming the adulterated medicine.

5.4.3. Bodily injury which causes death in the ordinary course of nature
These situations cover such acts where there is bodily injury which in ordinary sequence of
events leads to the death of the person. Read the part of the section carefully. The section
actually has two conditions  Firstly, the bodily injury inflicted is inflicted with the intention
of causing death of the person on whom it is inflicted.  Secondly, the bodily injury caused
in the ordinary course of events leads to death of someone.
Illustration (Cont: ) (c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the
death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder,
although he may not have intended to cause Z's death. (d) A without any excuse fires a loaded
cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not
have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.

www.clatpossible.com

62

An instance of the same would be:

 Musharraf wants Sharif dead. In order to kill Musharraf picks up a hockey stick and
repeatedly hits him on the head. Sharif dies as a result of the injury.
5.4.4 Commission of an imminently dangerous act without any legitimate reason which
would cause death or bodily injury which would cause death.
This head covers the commission of those acts which are so imminently dangerous which
when committed would cause death or bodily injury which would result in death of a person
and that such an act is done without any lawful excuse. Cases under this head have three
requirements  Commission of an inherently dangerous act  the knowledge that the act in
all probability will cause death or bodily injury which will cause death and  the act is done
without any excuse (the excuse must be lawful or legitimate excuse)
Instances would include:
 Throwing a high intensity bomb in a crowded public place.
 Thrown loaded cast iron boxes from a multi storied building in a busy thoroughfare.
5.5 Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
When not murder, culpable homicide is a crime by itself. As stated above a situation must
first become culpable homicide before it becomes murder. Though dealt with in detail in the
following section, the basic difference between culpable homicide and murder is the level of

Exceptions to Section 300, IPC, 1860: Exception 1- When culpable homicide is not murderCulpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by
grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the
death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following
provisos:- First- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an
excuse for killing. or doing harm to any person. Secondly- That the provocation is not given by
anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of
such public servant. Thirdly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful
exercise of the right of private defence.

www.clatpossible.com

63

intention involved. Where there is a very high level of intention involved the act usually falls
under murder. In addition to this general understanding (that acts when not murder are
culpable homicide) the IPC itself lists certain cases when death is caused to be read as
culpable homicide not amounting to murder covers five specific situations:
5.5.1 Acts under grave and sudden provocation
When a person looses self control on account of certain situation and causes the death of
some person. The provocation must be grave, it must be sudden, i.e. there must be no scope
for pre meditation and thirdly, it must not be self invited so as to use it as an excuse to
deprive a person of his/her life.
An example of this situation will be:
A has an affair with S. As husband returns home to find A in a compromising position with
S. Seeing his wife in such a position and without further thinking he reaches out for a knife
and kills S. S will have committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
5.5.2 When Private Defense is exceeded in good faith
In exercising private defense either with respect to property or person, if a person accidently
exceeds his or her right in good faith or in wrong judgment and the act causes the death of a
person, the act is culpable homicide and not murder
Let us try and attempt a question:

Section 300, IPC, 1860: Explanation to Exception 1- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden
enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

www.clatpossible.com

64


Amir breaks into Shah Rukhs house and attacks him with a club. Shah Rukh thinking that
Amir will not relent takes out his pistol and shoots Amir. Will it be murder?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
 Shah Rukh has not committed murder.
 Even if it proved that Shah Rukh exceeded the rule of proportionality while exercising
private defence, at best he committed culpable homicide and not murder.
5.5.3 Exceeding the Ambit of Discharging Public Duties
When an officer or public servant exceeds his or her mandate of duties or authority given to
him or an officer or public servant assisting him exceeds the same, it is considered culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
Example:
Inspector Chulbul was given instructions to capture Gabbar but not shoot him. When the
transport convoy broke down and Gabbar moved from his seat Chulbul thought he is going to
escape and shot him. At best Chulbul would have committed culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

Illustrations to Exception 1: (a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z,
intentionally kills Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the
death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation. (b) Y gives
grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing
himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but
merely culpable homicide. (c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by
the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public
servant in the exercise of his powers. (d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not
believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words,
and kills Z. This is murder. (e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays
hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z.
This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private
defence. (f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take
advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the
knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.

www.clatpossible.com

65

5.5.4 When death is caused in sudden fight or heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
Similar to the first situation, when at times fight gets out of hand and a person hits someone
or injures a person in such a fashion that may cause death of a person.
A CLAT question has been asked on this exception before. Let us study the example:

Principles:
1. If a person commits an act by which death is caused to another person and the act is
done with the intention of causing death the person is liable for murder
2. A person has a right of self defence to the extent of causing death to another provided
he apprehends the death by the act of the latter
Facts: Shuva went to a hardware shop owned by Anup. Bargaining on some item Led to
an altercation between the two and Shuva picked up a sharp object and hit at Anup. When
Anup started bleeding, his wife Mridula intervened and she was also hIt by Shuva and she
became unconscious. Finding himself totally cornered, Anup delivered a severe blow to
Shuva with a Sharp object. Shuva died instantly.
Possible decisions
(a) Anup murdered Shuva.
(b) Anup killed Shuva with the intention of killing to save himself and his wife.
(c) Anup killed Shuva without any intention to do just to save himself and his wife.
Probable reasons for the decision
i. If a person kills another instantly on the spot, the intention to kill is obvious.

Exception 2- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the
right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the
death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and
without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Illustration Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws
out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent
himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable
homicide.

www.clatpossible.com

66

ii. Anup used force apprehending death of himself and his wife
iii. Anup used disproportionate force
iv. There was nothing to show that Shuva wanted to kill Anup or his wife
Your decision with reason
a. (a)(i)
b. (a)(iii)
c. (c)(ii)
d. (b) (i)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
The most appropriate answer is (c)
You need to read the problem carefully.

The problem reads finding himself totally

cornered. To begin with therefore one can presume that there was no intention to kill but
intention to protect oneself. Thus options (a) and (b) are ruled out. Option (b) looks very
tempting, as we have studied that mens rea can be deduced by actus reus. However (b) the
facts nowhere indicate that there was intention to kill, but indicate that finding himself totally
cornered he tried to save himself and his wife. The best answer is therefore (c).
Another question has been asked in the previous years with some variations in NALSAR and
NLSIU.
Exception 3- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding. a
public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law,
and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the
due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is
caused.

www.clatpossible.com

67


A man is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder, if the act which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing murder.
A is suffering from jaundice and inflammation of the brain and B knows this condition.
One day they had a heated argument on some issue . slapped B in anger. B lost his selfcontrol and dealt a severe blow on As head. As a result, A died. The police sought to
prosecute B for murder.
(a) B was liable for murder, because he knew As delicate condition.
(b) B was liable for murder, because he acted in self defense.
(c) B was not liable for murder because he did not have the intention to kill A.
(d) B was not liable for murder because he acted under grave and sudden provocation.
NALSAR 2000/ NLSIU 1995
 The best answer is (c)
 The NLSIU question was asked without the fourth option which was present in the
NALSAR question. In either case the principle does not talk about grave and sudden
provocation so the fourth option is out. In this case the best answer is (c), as even though he
knew of As condition he did not hit A with the intention of killing him

Exception 4. -Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden

fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation- It is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

www.clatpossible.com

68

5.5.5 When death is caused of a person above eighteen years of age who voluntarily took
the risk of death
When death is caused in a situation where a person has by his own consent put himself to risk
the same would be culpable homicide and not murder
An example of this illustration would be:
Bhola instigates Bobby to commit suicide. Bobby after independently considering the
suggestion and without any pressure from Bhola commits suicide. If Bhola was an adult ,
then Bhola would be guilty for assisting in culpable homicide.
5.6 Difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder
Look at the specific instances above. In all of these you shall see the criminal intent to cause
death is a little lesser either due to loss of reason or presence of externalities or certain fact
specific situations. The difference between culpable homicide and murder stems essentially
from the degree of intention required to commit the act:

Exception 5- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the
age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Illustration A, by
instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on
account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted
murder.

www.clatpossible.com

69

Sl No.

Culpable Homicide

Murder

1. Intention

Intention

The offender must have intention of The offender must know (not required in
causing such bodily harm which is culpable homicide) that his act will cause
likely to cause death

death or the bodily injury will be sufficient

in ordinary course of nature to cause
death
If you study both of these culpable homicide
where there is almost sure to cause death if
attempted elevates it to murder.

2. Knowledge

Knowledge

The offender must have knowledge The knowledge should be such that the act
of that the act which he will cause is committed in all probability would cause
likely to cause death

death

So such instances of culpable homicide where the degree of intention or knowledge is so high
that it clearly highlights that the act was carried with the specific intention of killing someone
puts the act in the class of murder. Now let us try our hand at some previous years examples.

301. Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended
If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits
culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows
himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of
which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew
himself to be likely to cause.

www.clatpossible.com

70


Principle:

A person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder if the act by

which the death is caused is done with in an intention of causing death.

Facts:

A and B are playing hide and seek. A hides behind a bush. C, who is on a
prowl to hunt for rabbits observing some movement near the bush and
assuming a rabbit was hiding their fires and kills A. C does not know that A
was hiding behind the bush. The police prosecute C for murder.

(a) C would not be liable for murder, as he did not have the intention to kill A.
(b) C would be liable for murder because he should have taken care to find out the
target before shooting.
(c) C would Not be liable for murder, because it would be too much to expect him to
identify the target before shooting.
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
NLSIU 2001
 The most appropriate answer is (a)
 C shot at the bush with the intention of killing the rabbit not with the intention of killing
A. He had no reason to believe that A would be behind the bush.

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death commits
culpable homicide; publishable under Indian Penal Code.

307. Attempt to murder: Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty or murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
104[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is here in before mentioned

www.clatpossible.com

71

Bandipur is a protected area where in hunting is totally forbidden. Kannan, a poacher,

stealthily entered this area and he shot at a deer. He missed the target and the bullet hid
the forest guard relaxing near by, whom Kannan had not seen. The forest guard was
killed.

Decide

whether

Kannan

is

guilty

of

culpable

homicide.

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
NLSIU 1998
 Kanan will not be guilty of murder.
 Kannan fired the shot with the intention of killing the deer and not with the intention of
causing the death of the forest guard. The confusion may arise from the fact that Kanan
is indulging in an illegal activity. However, nothing in the problem indicates that the
shot was incumbent on the intention to kill the forest guard. Therefore, he cannot be
held guilty of murder.

Illustrations to Section 307 , IPC, 1860: (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such
circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under
this section. (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a
desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does
not ensure. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the
offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such
firing, he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of 150[the first
paragraph of] this section. (d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the
same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this
section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on Z's table. A has
committed the offence defined in this section.

www.clatpossible.com

72