FACULTY OF LAW

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY

PROJECT WORK
ON
INDIAN PENAL CODE

TOPIC:- CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER

SUBMITTED TO :-
SAMIA KHAN
SUBMITTED BY:-
INJILA MUSLIM ZAIDI
ROLL NO: 30, 3RD SEMESTER
1

Culpable homicide
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The present project on the “Culpable homicide not amounting to murder ” has been able to get
its final shape with the support and help of people from various quarters. My sincere thanks go
to all the members without whom the study could not have come to its present state. I am proud
to acknowledge gratitude to the individuals during my study and without whom the study may
not be completed. I have taken this opportunity to thank those who genuinely helped me.

With immense pleasure, I express my deepest sense of gratitude to Professor Samia Khan,
Faculty for Criminal Law, for helping me in my project. I am also thankful to the whole Faculty
of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia family that provided me all the material I required for the project.
I have made every effort to acknowledge credits, but I apologise in advance for any omission
that may have inadvertently taken place.

Last but not least I would like to thank Almighty whose blessing helped me to complete the
project.

INJILA MUSLIM ZAIDI

ROLL NO. - 30, 3RD SEMESTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Culpable homicide
1. INTRODUCTION

2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE: SECTION 299 DETAILED

3. COMBINING SECTIONS 299 AND 300: CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING

TO MURDER

4. EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 300: CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING

TO MURDER

5. CASE LAWS

6. CONCLUSION

BIBLIO GRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

Culpable homicide
 Section 299 and Section 300 IPC deals with the definition of culpable homicide and murder
respectively. Section 299 defines culpable homicide as the act of causing death; (i) with the
intention of causing death or (ii) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death or (iii) with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death. The bare reading of
the section makes it crystal clear that the first and the second clause of the section refer to
intention apart from the knowledge and the third clause refers to knowledge alone and not
intention. Both the expression "intent" and "knowledge" postulate the existence of a positive
mental attitude which is of different degrees. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e.
mental attitude towards the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. If that is
caused in any of the aforesaid three circumstances, the offence of culpable homicide is said to
have been committed. Section 300 IPC, however, deals with murder although there is no clear
definition of murder provided in Section 300 IPC. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that
culpable homicide is the genus and murder is species and that all murders are culpable homicide
but not vice versa. Section 300 IPC further provides for the exceptions which will constitute
culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304. When and if
there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is
only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then the same
would be a case of Section 304 Part II. The aforesaid distinction between an act amounting to
murder and an act not amounting to murder has been brought out in the numerous decisions of
the Court.

The distinguishing features of these different categories of unlawful homicides are: the degree of
intention, knowledge, or recklessness with which a particular homicide is committed. If the
probability of death resulting from a bodily injury is of a very high degree (i.e., where death is a
certainty) this constitutes murder, and if the probability is not of that order, it is culpable
homicide and if someone is killed under grave provocation and consent, it is Culpable Homicide
not Amounting to Murder.’

Culpable homicide
CULPABLE HOMICIDE: SECTION 299
DETAILED
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.1

Culpable Homicide in the simplest 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.

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 person’s 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 someone’s death in such a
situation as 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.

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.2

1
The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Culpable homicide
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 Ganda’s 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.3

Ingredients of Culpable Homicide

Acts

The Act should be of such a nature that it would put to peril someone’s life or damage
someone’s life to such an extent that the person would die. In most cases the act would involve a
high degree of violence against the person. Instances such stabbing a person in vital organs,
shooting someone at point blank range, administering poison would include instances which
would constitute culpable homicide. 4

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 someone’s death. For
example, starving someone may not require violence in the normal usage of the term, but may
cause a person’s death. The Section also covers administration of bodily injury which is “likely”
to cause death.

Intention

2
Gour , H.S., Penal law of India ( 2214-2235) ( 11 Cr LJ 295, 10 th edition, 1910)

3
(1912) 13 Cr LJ 145 ( 146)

4
Draft penal code , note M , pp 138-139

Culpable homicide
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 someone’s 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 of two types. Firstly, where bodily
injury itself is done in a fashion which causes death. For example, bludgeoning someone on the
head repeatedly with a blunt instrument. Secondly, 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

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
someone’s life or is likely to take someone’s 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 someone’s death.6

5
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal , law of crimes ,P. no.(1243) (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, 24 th ed.,1998)

6
K.D. Gaur , textbook on Indian penal Code, p. (397-398) ((Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, 6 th edition, 2016)

Culpable homicide
 COMBINING SECTIONS 299 AND
300: 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 takes us to two conclusions,
namely:

1. For an act to be classified as murder it must first meet all the conditions of culpable homicide.

2. 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, 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 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 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.
Now, let us study the situations in which culpable homicide does amount to murder. Section 300
states, that except for situation states (which do not concern us as of now) culpable homicide is
murder in four situations:

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:

1. Shooting someone at point blank range.

Culpable homicide
2. Stabbing someone in the heart.

3. Hanging someone by the neck till he dies.

4. Strapping a bomb on someone.

5. Administering poison to someone.

Remember the act must be accompanied with the intention to “cause death.”7

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
victim’s 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:

1. 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.

2. Lolo is suffering from jaundice. Bebo knows this and slips in alcohol in Lolo’s medicine in
order to rupture Lolo’s liver so Lolo dies. Lolo dies as a result of consuming the adulterated
medicine.

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. An instance of the same would be:

1. 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.

7
Allen Gledhill, the Indian penal code in Nigeria. Year book of legal studies , P.(17) ( department of legal studies , madras, 1960

Culpable homicide
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:

1. Throwing a high intensity bomb in a crowded public place.

2. Thrown loaded cast iron boxes from a multi storied building in a busy thoroughfare.8

Illustrations

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

(b) A, knowing that Z is laboring 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
laboring 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 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.

(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.

8
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal , law of crimes ,P. no.(1243) (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, 24 th ed.,1998)

Culpable homicide
EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 300:
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
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:

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. A’s 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.9

When Private Defense is exceeded in good faith

9
The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Culpable homicide
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. 10

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.11

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 a 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) An
attempt 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

10
Ram Lal , Draft penal code p. (147, 148) ( ILR luck, 1927)

11
K.D. Gaur , textbook on Indian penal Code, p. (412) (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, 6 th edition, 2016)

Culpable homicide
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.

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. Culpable homicide is not
murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defense 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.12

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 horse whipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder,
but only culpable Homicide.

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.

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
12
Dandapati china nagadu v. Emperor , 1937 Mad WN 1129

Culpable homicide
and without any pressure from Bhola commits suicide. If Bhola was an adult, then Bhola would
be guilty for assisting in culpable homicide. 13

CASE LAWS
1. BHURA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

13
Draft penal code , note 4, pp. 145-146

Culpable homicide
Facts: The appellant along with other persons entered into the hut of the deceased.
Apprehending danger to his life the deceased fired at one of the companions of the appellant
causing his death. The appellant then attacked the deceased with an axe on his head killing him.
The plea of the accused that the act of the deceased in killing his companion gave rise to grave
and sudden provocation depriving him of his power of self -control because of which he caused
the death of the deceased and, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of exception 1 to section
300 of IPC was turned down by the court.

Decision of the court: - The court rejected the contention of the appellant and held that the
first proviso to exception1 to section 300, IPC was attracted in this case disentitling him to the
benefit of said exception., since the appellant had entered into the hut of the deceased along
with other companions as aggressors. The provocation was voluntarily sought when they were
confronted by those who were entitled to protect their body and property, and hence they
cannot avail the benefit of exception 1 to section 300, IPC.

In case the provocation is voluntarily sought by offenders as an

excuse for killing or doing any harm, benefit to exception 1 to section 300 IPC is not
admissible vide proviso First exception 1 to section 300 of IPC.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS RAM PRASAD

In this case clause 4 of section 300 was applied by the supreme court in a totally different
context. In this case the accused ram Prasad and his wife raji had a quarrel. Villagers were called
to mediate, but to no avail. At that time the accused poured kerosene oil over the wife and set her
on to the fire. She suffered extensive injuries and died as a result of these injuries. The supreme
court observed that in respect of clause 1-3 of section 300, the question would arise as to what
was the intension of the accused, the nature of injuries he intended to cause etc. Which would all
be matter of speculation. The SC coined that it would be simpler to rely on clause 4 only.
Because, it contemplates only knowledge and no intention. The court held that though generally
the clause is invoked where there is no intention to cause the death of any particular person, the
clause in its own terms may be used in those cases where there is such callousness towards the
result, and the risk taken is such that it may be stated that the person knows that the act is likely
to cause death . In the present case when the accused poured kerosene and set fire to his wife he

Culpable homicide
must have known that the act would result in death. As he had no reason for incurring such risk,
the offence was held to fall within clause 4 of section 300. And would be culpable homicide
amounting to murder.

SUKHDEV SINGH VS NCT OF DELHI

Facts: An altercation ensued between the accused / appellant a Security Officer and the
deceased after the accused objected of the parking of vehicle near the gate of his employer,
resulting in his death by a pistol.

Decision of the court: The court rejected the contention by the appellants that it was a case of
accident under section 80 of IPC because when the deceased tried to snatch the pistol, he fired
killing the deceased and injuring the passer by, the apex court held that the case is covered by
exception 4 to section 300 to IPC since all ingredients of the Exception are satisfied. For
instance: 1. It was a sudden fight; 2. There was no premeditation; 3. The act was in the heat of
passion upon sudden quarrel; and 4. The assailant had not taken any undue advantages or acted
in a cruel manner.

CONCLUSION

Culpable homicide
Section 299 and Section 300 IPC deals with the definition of culpable homicide and murder
respectively. Section 299 defines culpable homicide as the act of causing death; (i) with the
intention of causing death or (ii) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death or (iii) with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death. The bare reading of
the section makes it crystal clear that the first and the second clause of the section refer to
intention apart from the knowledge and the third clause refers to knowledge alone and not
intention. Both the expression "intent" and "knowledge" postulate the existence of a positive
mental attitude which is of different degrees. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e.
mental attitude towards the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. If that is
caused in any of the aforesaid three circumstances, the offence of culpable homicide is said to
have been committed. Section 300 IPC, however, deals with murder although there is no clear
definition of murder provided in Section 300 IPC. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that
culpable homicide is the genus and murder is species and that all murders are culpable homicide
but not vice versa. When and if there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of
Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and
bodily injury, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part II. The aforesaid distinction
between an act amounting to murder and an act not amounting to murder has been brought out in
the numerous decisions of this Court. In the scheme of the Penal Code, "culpable homicides" is
genus and "murder" its specie. All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice-versa. Speaking
generally, "culpable homicide" sans "special characteristics of murder", is "culpable homicide
not amounting to murder". For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of
this generic offence, the Code practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The
first is, what may be called, "culpable homicide of the first degree". This is the greatest form of
culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as "murder". The second may be termed as
"culpable homicide of the second degree". This is punishable under the first part of Section 304.
Then, there is "culpable homicide of the third degree". This is the lowest type of culpable
homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments
provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second
part of Section 304."

Culpable homicide
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The Indian Penal Code, 30th Edition, Justice Y V Chandrachud and V R Manohar

2. The Indian Penal Code, 14th Edition, Surya Narayan Mishra and Sanjay Mishra

3. The Indian Penal Code, 5th Edition, Prof. T. Bhattacharyya

4. Indian Penal Code , volume 3 , Manohar and Chitaley

5. The Indian Penal Code, 3rd Edition, K.D. Gaur

Culpable homicide