Indian Law of Homicide

One of this author's many subjects in school is Legal

Studies, and it caused him great disquiet while studying
the law of the land to comprehend just how ignorant the
common man, educated and uneducated alike, is
regarding the rules and regulations that bind and control
his daily life. Worse still, when we unknowingly step
beyond those boundaries, there is no safety net: the
system of justice is willing to excuse a mistake of fact, but
not a mistake of law.
It is a great irony that, despite it being considered the
prerogative of each and every person domiciled or
residing in the territory of a State to familiarize himself with
the laws of the place, our system of formalized education
has never given much importance to the subject: what little
law we study is constitutional, and limited mostly to being
supplementary to the subject of civics. The subject of legal
studies was not even available to us until last year and the
places that do offer it find few takers. This ultimately leads
to the creation of generation after generation of 'educated'
individuals who know more about the working of stellar
bodies than about not getting thrown into jail.
It is my sincere belief that educating people about the law
will have a greater deterrent effect than all of the
compulsory death sentences in the world; matters which
many consider trivial and not worthy of attention may, in
fact, be legal offences, and may even have very stringent
punishment prescribed. Knowing the possible (probable, in
fact) consequences of their actions will doubtlessly make
some potential criminals among us think twice. Or maybe
thrice.
Keeping this in mind, I have decided to start a small series
on this blog dedicated to expounding upon various
aspects of law and the theories behind them, as well as
the associated penalties and punishments. I will focus
initially on criminal law, which has the most bearing on
daily life, but I do plan on moving on to civil law in the
future when I have the requisite knowledge.
Also, please note that I'm not a lawyer by profession, and I
am not equipped to give you comprehensive legal advice.
What I will put down here is intended to serve as a
bare-bones guide only. Please consult with your lawyer if
you intend to apply this knowledge to an actual case. Of
course, I will attempt to answer any queries you might
have in the comments.
That being said, I have decided to start off with a bang
today, in keeping with my 'educate to deter' theory. Today,
we will be talking about homicide (in easier, though slightly
inaccurate words, murder).
What is Homicide?
The word 'homicide' has its root in two Latin words: 'homo',
meaning man, and 'cid' (used in suffix form 'cide'),
meaning 'to kill'. The word 'cid' is itself a variant of 'cis',
which means 'to cut' (In​cis​ion?). Thus, homicide means 'to
kill a man' or rather, 'the act of killing a man'.
Homicide is recognized as the worst offence against the
person in criminal law, a cut (pun not intended, but
welcome nonetheless) above all others like assault,
causing hurt or grievous hurt, kidnapping or abduction,
and even crimes that are themselves highly barbaric, like
rape. To take a person's life is the worst punishment that
can be inflicted upon a hapless victim, and the law will
exact a heavy toll on the perpetrator of such an offence.

Is All Homicide Criminal?

Of course not. Indeed, there are many situations where
homicide may not just be allowed but even ordered by law.
Is it right to punish a hangman who puts a man to death
on the order of a judge, or to condemn a man who kills to
defend himself? Homicide is classified into lawful and
unlawful homicide. The commission of the latter will attract
the rigorous punishment of the law, while that of the
former is no crime whatsoever.
Lawful Homicide is of two types:
 1. Justifiable Homicide: A homicide that is sanctioned or
commanded by law is justifiable homicide. For
example, a soldier who kills enemies in the course of
a war, or an executioner who kills on legal directions,
commits justifiable homicide, as long as it is
committed in the legitimate course of duty. A person
who exercises his right of private defence and kills to
defend himself when he has no other choice also
commits justifiable homicide.
2. Excusable homicide: A homicide that, though not
lawful, takes place by accident or without any
intention or knowledge on the killer's part, is
excusable homicide. If the perpetrator of homicide is
insane, of unsound mind, intoxicated, or a child of
insufficient understanding, or if a surgeon, sincerely
and to the best of his ability, performs surgery on a
person in the course of which he dies, the act
performed is excusable, although it is homicide, as
there was no criminal intent on the part of the killer.
These are the general definitions of the two kinds of lawful
homicide. However, Indian law has a specific set of
conditions under which homicide is lawful laid out in the
Penal Code. These fall under the 'General Exceptions'
section of the IPC and will absolve the accused of any
crime if satisfied. These include cases:
 ● Where death is caused by accident or misfortune
while performing a lawful act in a lawful manner
(Section 80);
● Where death is caused by a child, a person of
unsound mind, or an intoxicated person (Section 82,
83, 84, and 85);
● Where death is caused unintentionally in the doing of
an act for the benefit of the person killed, after having
obtained the consent of the person or his lawful
guardian, or when it is impossible to obtain consent in
time (Sections 87, 88, 89, and 92);
● Where death is caused by a person who is bound or
authorized, or sincerely believes himself to be bound
or authorized by law to kill in such a manner (Sections
76 and 79);
● Where death is caused by a Judge in the exercise of
his power and duty, or when he sincerely believed
that he is exercising such power and duty, or where it
is caused by a person acting in pursuance of the
order of a Court of Justice (Sections 77 and 78);
● Where death is caused without criminal intention to
avert harm to other person or property (Section 81);
● Where death is caused in lawful exercise of the right
of private defence (Sections 96 to 106).
In all cases except the above, homicide is unlawful and a
criminal offence.
Types of Unlawful Homicide
Unlawful homicide is divided into various categories
according to the nature and gravity of the offence. In
increasing order of seriousness, they are:
1. Death by negligence;
2. Culpable homicide (technically also called culpable
homicide not amounting to murder);
3. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
4. Murder.
We will now look at each of these in detail, starting with
culpable homicide.

Culpable Homicide
The definition of culpable homicide is laid down in Section
299 of the IPC. It states:

"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.

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 breathed or been
completely born."

Let us break this provision down. The first prerequisite is,

of course, that death has been caused by a person's
actions. Next, three conditions have been provided under
which such fatal act can be classified as culpable
homicide:
1. Where the act is performed with the intention to cause
death;
2. Where the act is performed with the intention to cause
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
 3. Where the act is performed with the knowledge that it
is likely by such act to cause death.
The first thing that we should notice here is that the
section explicitly mentions 'bodily injury'. That means that
no other form of injury caused, even if it constitutes a
separate offence, will render a person guilty of culpable
homicide, even if such injury results in death. Thus, when
a son leads a life of debauchery and extravagance, which
causes mental injury to his mother and drives her to
suicide, he is not guilty of culpable homicide. However, if
the injury so caused leads by an unbroken and clear chain
of events to physical harm, the accused may be held
liable. If a man, knowing that another person is easily
excitable, screams into his ear suddenly, knowing it to be
likely that he will go into cardiac arrest and die, or even
intending the same, he shall be guilty of culpable homicide
should the death occur.
The next thing we should notice is that the offence of
culpable homicide has accorded a relatively weak status
to intention as a qualifier. An act performed with the
intention to cause death is most definitely culpable
homicide, but when a person intentionally causes such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, he is rendered
guilty of culpable homicide, even if he had not intended to
cause death. Thus, if a man lands a blow with a wooden
stick on another's head while intending to do so, and the
person dies as a result, he shall be held guilty, even if he
had no intention to kill. Similarly, any act that the offender
knows to be likely to cause death shall condemn him if
performed, even if he had no intention to cause death.
Thus, if a son, knowing his father has a weak heart, gives
him terrible news in a sudden and insensitive manner,
causing his death, he shall be guilty of culpable homicide.
Then, of course, we must ponder upon the nature of the
act in question. It's pretty clear from the definition of
culpable homicide that the act committed need not directly
harm the person for it to constitute the offence. Any
intentional act, or act performed with the requisite
knowledge, which by a clear chain of events leads to the
death of a person, is culpable homicide. Thus, if a man
chances upon a quarrel between two men, one of them
insane, and hands the insane one a knife knowing it to be
likely that he will stab and kill the other, he commits the
offence of culpable homicide when death is caused, even
if it hadn't been his intention to cause his death. The
person who wielded the knife, being of unsound mind,
commits no offence.
On the flip side, if there is neither intention nor knowledge
on the part of the accused, the offence may not be
culpable homicide even when death is caused. When a
man kicks another in the stomach, not knowing that he
has an enlarged spleen and not intending to kill him or
cause deadly injury, resulting in his victim rupturing his
spleen and dying, he shall not be held liable for culpable
homicide, as he did not have even the faintest idea that
what he was doing might result in death. A guilty mind is a
prerequisite to any criminal act, and without it, the criminal
court will set the accused free no matter how serious the
consequences of his actions.
Let's deal with the Explanations next. The first Explanation
brings the hastening of death into the scope of culpable
homicide. Even if a person is suffering from a disorder,
disease or infirmity that is likely to cause death in the
foreseeable future, the law does not give anyone the right
to hasten his death; as long as a person is living, even if
he is at the very doorstep of death, killing him is homicide.
Thus, if a man, knowing that his mother suffers from a
fatal malady of the flesh, takes her life, he commits the
offence given under this section, even if his intention was
only to mitigate her suffering.
The second Explanation lays the liability of death upon the
one who caused the fatal injury, regardless of what else
might have been done to attempt to save the victim in the
meanwhile. Its purpose is to save medical workers and
other helpers from criminal liability for doing their work
sincerely. Thus, if a man stabs another, and paramedics
arrive but fail to save him despite sincere efforts, the
stabber shall be liable for his death.
The third Explanation clarifies that an unborn infant is not
considered a valid victim of culpable homicide. However, if
even a part of the baby's body has exited the mother's
body, killing it shall make the perpetrator liable under this
section, even if the child has not breathed or been
completely born. The killing of an unborn child is handled
under separate Sections of the Penal Code.
That concludes the breakdown of simple culpable
homicide. Next, we shall look at the concept of murder,
and when homicide is and is not murder.

Concept of Murder
The modern English word 'murder' descends from the
word 'morthor' which means 'to kill in secret'. In ancient
times, a distinction was made between killing in secret and
killing in the open; the former was a crime, while the latter
was not. However, in modern times, this distinction has
been done away with, and all killings that match the legal
criteria are murder.
Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide. It is a
death caused with malicious intent and premeditation. All
murder is culpable homicide, but the converse is not true.
Generally, when an act is performed with specific intent to
kill or in such a manner that death as an outcome should
be obvious to any sane person, that act takes on the
definition of murder.
Even when compared to a crime as heinous as homicide,
murder is worse still, and the maximum punishment
allowed by law is often reserved for this offence. In many
places, it is one of the few crimes that have the potential to
attract even the death penalty.

Murder under Indian Law

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code lays down the
offence of murder. However, it also defines the offence of
'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', in the form of
five crucial Exceptions to the Section. When the act
committed fits the definition of murder, but the special
circumstances of the case align with these Exceptions, the
aggressor's loss of self-control is taken as a valid excuse,
and his offence is commuted to the lesser one. The
Section goes as follows:

"300. 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, 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 in​flicted 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.

Exception 1. - When culpable homicide is not murder.

- Culpable 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 pro​voked 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 exer​cise 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.

Explanation. - Whether the provocation was grave and

sudden enough to prevent the offence from
amounting to murder is a question of fact.

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.

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.

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.

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."

As is apparent, this is a massive section, so we will be

covering this under two separate heads: one for murder,
and one for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Let's start with murder.
Four conditions have been given, under which an act
which causes death can be classified as murder. They
are:
1. Where an act is performed with the intention to cause
death;
2. Where an act is performed with the intention to cause
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person so harmed;
3. Where an act is performed with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature;
4. Where the act is performed with the knowledge that it
is so dangerous that it must in all probability cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
and is performed without any excuse for undertaking
such act.
At the very get-go, we notice that the first point overlaps
with that of culpable homicide. This is because, as has
been mentioned before, murder is aggravated homicide.
Thus, if a man commits an act with the intention to cause
death, he has committed aggravated culpable homicide,
which is murder.
The second condition punishes an act done with the
intention to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person involved. This
clause seeks to punish those who know of and exploit a
specific disease or infirmity in their victim to bring about
their death. Thus, if a man, knowing that another has a
pacemaker implanted in his heart, intentionally uses a
magnet to impair its functioning and bring about his death,
he shall be held liable for murder.
Murder is distinguished very subtly from culpable homicide
in the third point. For culpable homicide to occur, the injury
'must be likely to cause death'. However, for murder to
occur, the injury 'must be sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature'. One asks for a possibility, and
the other demands a probability. Thus, if a man stabs
another in the heart, he is a murderer, as it is clear that the
act he performs is enough to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. However, if he hits a strong, well-built
man on the head with a wooden stick, and the man dies
as a result, he would not be held liable for murder, as the
injury was not serious enough to cause death in all
probability; death was only a likely outcome.
The fourth point is non-specific and is designed to target
those who, though not intending to kill any specific person,
commit acts so inherently dangerous that they must end in
murder. Thus, a man who drives a car into a crowd and
kills a man is liable for his murder, even if he had not
intended to cause the death of that person specifically.
As the section starts, 'culpable homicide is murder'. That
means all conditions of culpable homicide must be
satisfied before the question of whether it is murder can
even be raised. And, conversely, all the points raised in
relation to the conviction of culpable homicide previously
in this article apply to this section as well. As is pretty
apparent, intention and knowledge have been given far
greater status in Section 300 than in Section 299. We can
even go so far as to say culpable homicide is not murder
only when it is committed without any malice, express or
implied, whatsoever. An act of culpable homicide becomes
murder only when it can be proved beyond any
reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to
cause the death of the victim, or had every reason to
believe that whatever he was doing was enough to put the
victim in mortal danger. Otherwise, the law will grant the
accused the benefit of the doubt and commute his crime to
simple culpable homicide. Thus, when a gunman raises
his gun at a man in motion with the intent to fire over his
head and scare him, and kills him as a result, while
knowing that he was likely to fatally wound a moving target
by accident in his attempt, he commits only culpable
homicide, in the absence of any evidence showing that he
had any intention to kill or knowledge that what he was
doing was in all probability fatal. However, if the evidence
of malice is present, he shall be classified as a murderer.
Having concluded our discussion on murder, we now
move on to the second part of this Section.
Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
In some cases, even when all the ingredients for the crime
of murder are present, there are certain exceptional
circumstances which can justify, to a certain extent, the
conduct of the accused. His offence is not committed out
of simple malicious intention, but by a lack of self-control
brought on by circumstances extremely provocative in
nature. In such a scenario, it would be highly unjust to club
him together with hardened criminals and killers and
subject him to the same punishment. Thus, the Code has
created an intermediate offence laid out in the five
Exceptions to Section 300. If even one of them is fulfilled,
the law will excuse the killer from the charge of murder.
This intermediate offence is known as 'culpable homicide
not amounting to murder'.
The first Exception deals with a case where death is
caused due to grave and sudden provocation given to the
murderer. The provocation has the effect of inflaming him
to the point of losing his self-control and results in him
causing the death of the one who gave the provocation, or
of another person by misfortune or accident. In this case,
the law will grant him a reprieve and commute his
sentence of murder to that of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. However, this defence is not
available when, in response to the provocation, the
murderer kills another person deliberately, and not by
accident. This reprieve is not meant to excuse retribution
upon the provoker by attacking innocents. Thus, if a man
gives grave insult to another, and provokes him into killing
the man's lover in response, it is murder, unless the death
was caused by accident. There is no set rule in law
concerning the labelling of offences as grave and/or
sudden. It is purely a question of fact that is decided on a
case-to-case basis.
There are, however, a few cases where, even if
provocation is grave according to the killer, no reprieve is
provided under the law. These are the provisos attached
to the Exception. The culprit shall not be excused if
murder when he:
● Deliberately provokes the other person into provoking
him in return, or seeks a provocation actively, as an
excuse for killing him;
● Is provoked into murder by an action done in
obedience to law, or by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of his powers;
● Is provoked by something done in the legitimate
exercise of the right of private defence.
These provisos are meant to provide savings for some
special cases where the provocation, though present, is
legitimate in nature, and cannot be taken as an excuse for
murderous rage. The first proviso seeks to pre-empt the
case where the murderer deliberately manipulates the
victim into giving him provocation so that he can later have
his sentence reduced by taking it as an excuse. Thus, if a
man slaps another hard, knowingly provoking him into
slapping him in return, and then murders him taking that
excuse, he shall have committed murder, as he
deliberately took an action to manipulate the victim into
provoking him.
The second proviso excuses actions done in obedience to
law by ordinary persons, or done by public officers in the
lawful exercise of their powers, from the limits of legitimate
provocation. Thus, if a police constable sees a robber
running away after stealing from a house, and attempts to
apprehend him, provoking the robber into killing him, he
shall have committed murder, as the constable acted in
obedience to his legal duty to apprehend a criminal.
The third proviso excuses from the definition of
provocation any action taken in the legitimate exercise of
the right of private defence. This proviso is designed to
prevent criminals from taking refuge behind this law when
they commit the murder of a resisting victim. A man
attempts to rape a woman. In the course of this attempt,
the woman strikes him. This provokes him into a
murderous rage, and he kills the woman. He has
committed murder, as the woman was exercising her
legitimate right of private defence.
The second Exception excuses from the charge of murder
those who, while exercising the right of private defence in
good faith, accidentally get carried away and cause death
in a scenario where the right did not extend to the causing
of death. The death must not be premeditated and must
be caused while doing no more harm than is necessary for
the purpose of such defence. A person who is in peril
cannot be expected to act with a cool and clear head in
such a scenario, and it is entirely possible that he will get
carried away. If he causes death in such a state, the law
will excuse him from the offence of murder, but only if the
death is completely accidental and situational. A man is
set upon by a thug, wrestles with him, and succeeds in
throwing him off. As the thug, seeing his attempt fail, tries
to run away, he picks up an iron rod and hits him on the
head, causing the goon's death. Here, the man has
committed murder, as he caused the death after the
immediate threat had passed and harm was no longer
necessary for defence. Similarly, if there was
premeditation on the part of the defender to kill the
assaulter, the homicide would be murder.
The third Exception is very similar to the second and
saves from the clutches of the offence of murder those
public servants who accidentally exceed the power
provided to them by law and cause death while in good
faith believing their actions to be necessary for the
discharge of his duty, and without any ill will towards the
person killed. The section also protects those who aid a
public servant in the execution of his duty. A police
constable is running after a thief. The constable asks a
bystander to help him apprehend the thief. The bystander
tussles with the thief, and in the course of the tussle,
accidentally bangs his head on a rock and causes his
death. The man has not committed murder, but only
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The fourth Exception is very similar to the first one.
However, instead of dealing with simple provocation, it
considers the case of a sudden and inflammatory quarrel,
in which the temper of both parties is increased to a point
where one loses self-control and kills the other. The
Exception holds that the killer shall not commit murder, but
only culpable homicide not amounting to murder, provided
the killer did not act in an unnecessarily deliberate or cruel
manner, which would indicate malice. A man and his wife
have a heated quarrel, in the course of which he bangs his
wife's head against a table's edge, causing her death. He
has not committed murder. However, if he gets a can of
kerosene and pours it over her, before lighting her on fire,
he shall have committed murder, as he acted in a cruel
and unnecessary manner. Which party first provoked the
quarrel is not important; the law will grant both the
aggressor and the defendant the leeway under this
section.
The fifth and final Exception to murder excuses the killer
from the charge when the victim, being above the age of
eighteen years and thus able to give legitimate consent
under this section, agrees to be killed or to suffer the risk
of death freely. Thus, if a man asks another to push him
off a cliff, knowing fully that death is the most probable
outcome of his fall, and he obeys, the one who pushed
shall not be guilty of murder, but only culpable homicide.
However, if the victim is a minor under the age of eighteen
years, he is not competent to consent to his own death,
and the killer shall be liable for murder.

Punishments for Culpable Homicide

Indian law has provided for three tiers of culpable
homicide, similar to those in countries like the UK, with
increasing seriousness of the offence. The three forms
are:

1. First-degree murder (Murder under Indian Law)

2. Second-degree murder (Culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Indian law)
3. Third-degree murder (Simple culpable homicide under
Indian law)
Simple murder is punishable by Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, with reference to Section 300 to provide the
definition of murder. A person guilty of murder is to be
punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine. Earlier, death penalty was the default
punishment, with the judge having to specially note his
reasons for reducing the sentence to life imprisonment if
he chose to do so under Section 367 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898. However, this requirement was
removed in 1955 by amendment, and when the new (and
current) CrPC came into force in 1973, it made death
penalty the exceptional, rather than ordinary, punishment
for murder. In the modern day, the Judge must give
special reasons for imposing death penalty if he chooses
to do so, and in absence of any, the sentence will be
commuted to life imprisonment by the appellant Court.
The Courts used to have wide discretionary powers in the
imposition of death penalty; only a logical reason was
required. However, in the 1980 case ​Bachan Singh vs the
State of Punjab,​ the Apex Court delivered a landmark
judgment, confining the imposition of capital punishment to
only the ‘rarest of the rare’ category of cases. An ultimate
and irreversible sentence of capital punishment can only
be given when the offender has demonstrated by the
depravity of his act that he is beyond all hope of
reformation - he must be a menace of such a magnitude to
society that he deserves no mercy from the people or the
Courts.
A sentence of death awarded by a trial Court usually
passes through five stages before it is set in stone:
1. Pronouncement of Death Penalty by Trial Court;
2. Compulsory confirmation of sentence by High Court.
After confirmation, the case is usually certified fit for
appeal before the Supreme Court;
3. The appeal against the death sentence in Supreme
Court;
4. Review petition against the Apex Court’s judgment;
5. Curative petition against the decision on the review
petition.
Even after the death sentence is thus confirmed, the
President can still choose to exercise his judicial powers
and pardon the killer or commute the sentence to life
imprisonment, either on receipt of an application or on his
own volition. However, the President does not usually
exercise this power except under the rarest of
circumstances. This power is subject to judicial review,
and a pardon can be overturned if given on flimsy or
biased grounds.

The punishments for simple culpable homicide and

culpable homicide not amounting to murder are given in
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, in the latter and
former parts respectively. Commission of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder can attract a sentence
of life imprisonment, or of a term of imprisonment (simple
or rigorous) extending upto ten years. Commission of
culpable homicide simpliciter is punishable by a term of
imprisonment of either description for upto ten years. Both
offences also attract a fine.
Here, it is expedient to note the difference between simple
and rigorous imprisonment. Simple imprisonment is a
milder punishment - the offender is simply kept cloistered
away from society for the determined term. He may be
taught some productive work or artistic craft both to pass
the time and help in rehabilitation upon his eventual
release (if it comes), but working is entirely optional. On
the other hand, rigorous imprisonment is a much more
grueling punishment, usually reserved for repeat offenders
or hardened criminals. Prisoners sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment are required to do compulsory hard labor
during their term of confinement. The exact nature of the
work varies from prison to prison, but it is, at least in
theory, supposed to be back-breaking labor designed to
act as a deterrent for any future offenders. Life
imprisonment can be either simple or rigorous depending
on the Court’s discretion.

Death by Negligence
Death by negligence is a lesser offence compared to the
three types of ‘true’ homicide. It is not an act of
commission; it is rather criminally deliberate omission.
Death by negligence is caused when a person omits to
take the appropriate care and performs a rash or negligent
act that causes death. This death, not having been caused
by any deliberate intention or knowledge, does not amount
to culpable homicide. Thus, to punish lethal acts of
criminal negligence, Section 304A was inserted into the
IPC in 1870. It reads:

“​304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever

causes the death of any person by doing any rash or
negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.”

The essential ingredients are:

1. Death must have been caused by the act in question;
2. The death must have been caused by the accused;
3. The act causing death must have been rash or
negligent and must not amount to culpable homicide.
There must be a direct connection between the act of the
accused and the death caused for it to be termed death by
negligence. A man accidentally leaves the stove’s fuel
supply on after cooking, leading the inflammable gas to
permeate the whole kitchen. His wife enters the kitchen
and, not paying heed to the strong smell that signals a gas
leak, attempts to light the stove. She dies in the ensuing
explosion. Here, the man is not guilty of causing death by
negligence, as there was not a direct causal relationship
between his wife’s death and his action; her death would
not have occurred without a negligent act on her part i.e.
not paying attention to the smell.
What is the difference between a rash act and a negligent
act? A criminally rash act is primarily a hazardous or
wanton act done in overt haste. The person acting rashly
knows he is doing so, and knows that by acting rashly, he
risks injuring someone, but has no intention to cause injury
or knowledge that he will probably do so. The criminal
aspect of the act lies in running the risk of doing such an
act recklessly even after knowing the possible
consequences.
On the other hand, a negligent act is omitting to do
something any sane man in the same situation would have
done, or doing something no prudent and reasonable man
would do in the situation. It is a breach of a legal duty to
do something or omit to do something. Thus, if man,
behind the wheel of a car, where any sane man would
assume it his prerogative to keep control, neglects to do
so and rams the vehicle into a tree, he is guilty of
negligence, unless he had a valid reason for losing
control. However, if a driver who is fully alert on the job,
but is driving at extremely high speeds without regard for
any possible obstacles, accidentally rams into and kills a
person, he has committed a rash act, as he did not take
the proper precautions that any reasonable driver would
take while driving without any regard for the
consequences that might follow, but had no intention of
hitting or killing anyone.
Death by negligence can be imposed for the death of ‘any
person’, including unborn children. Thus, if a man kicks his
wife, who he knows to be pregnant, in the stomach,
without any intention of killing the unborn child, and
causes the foetus’ death, he shall be held guilty under this
section for his rash act.
This offence is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with
both.

Conclusion
The Indian system of law has provided a robust framework
for the prosecution and punishment of homicide and other
allied offences. The strictest punishments allowed under
the IPC have been reserved for the offences of this
category. It was hoped that these would discourage
criminals from committing these grievous offences against
the people. However, due to a variety of reasons, this
proved to be a Utopian hope: on average, there is one
murder every 16 minutes in India, one attempt to murder
every 19 minutes, and one case of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder (both kinds) every 2 hours. The
system of administration of criminal justice is agonizingly
slow, with cases sometimes being stuck in court for more
than 30 years, and the methods of dispensation of justice
have unfortunately ensured that lower sections of the
economic strata continue to be punished more for their
crimes than the affluent, lack of access to professional
legal aid being a major factor. Nevertheless, it is hoped
that with this article, at least some of these would-be
criminals will be made to reconsider their actions in the
future, and the general awareness of the law among the
public will also be raised. The full scope of unlawful
homicide is impossible to cover in one article, and some
specialized offences like dowry death and abetment of
suicide have been reserved for a future article. For now,
we end right here.