Comparative Study Of Murder And Culpable Homicide
1. Introduction
In Indian criminal law, both Murder and Culpable Homicide deal with the unlawful killing of a person, but the degree of intention and circumstances surrounding the act distinguish them. These are defined under:
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Culpable Homicide
Section 300 of the IPC: Murder
The distinction between these two is fine and often causes confusion, but Indian courts have clarified it over the years through various judgments.
2. Meaning and Difference
| Aspect | Culpable Homicide (Sec. 299 IPC) | Murder (Sec. 300 IPC) |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Causing death with the intention of causing death or bodily injury likely to cause death. | A form of culpable homicide with specific conditions that elevate it to murder. |
| Seriousness | Less serious than murder | Most serious form of homicide |
| Punishment | Section 304 IPC (life imprisonment or up to 10 years + fine) | Section 302 IPC (death penalty or life imprisonment + fine) |
| Intent | May be present but not always strong enough to presume death was certain | Clear and strong intent to kill or cause such harm that death is almost certain |
| Examples | Fight without premeditation resulting in death | Planned killing or use of deadly weapons causing certain death |
3. Key Ingredients
Section 299 IPC – Culpable Homicide
Intention to cause death; or
Intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
Knowledge that act is likely to cause death.
Section 300 IPC – Murder
A culpable homicide becomes murder if:
Act is done with intention of causing death.
Act is done with intention of causing bodily injury, and the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
However, there are five exceptions to Section 300, where even though the act would normally amount to murder, it is treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
4. Important Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
Case 1: Reg. v. Govinda (1876) ILR 1 Bom 342
Facts:
Govinda kicked his wife during a quarrel. She fell and he then placed his knee on her chest and hit her. She died due to internal injuries.
Held:
The Bombay High Court held this to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as there was no intention to cause death or such bodily injury that would likely cause death.
Importance:
Justice Melvill in this case laid down the basic distinction:
All murders are culpable homicides, but not all culpable homicides are murders.
Murder is aggravated form of culpable homicide.
Case 2: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976 AIR 489, 1977 SCR (1) 601)
Facts:
The accused stabbed the deceased in a sudden fight. The question was whether it was murder or culpable homicide.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified:
Culpable homicide is the genus, and murder is the species.
If the act falls under the exceptions to Section 300, it is not murder.
This case was held to be murder as the intention and nature of injury clearly showed that death was the most probable outcome.
Importance:
This judgment provided a clear jurisprudential framework to distinguish between Section 299 and 300 IPC.
Case 3: Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465)
Facts:
The accused stabbed a person in the abdomen with a spear. The wound was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Held:
Supreme Court held that it was murder under Section 300 "Thirdly", because:
The bodily injury was intended.
It was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Importance:
The court laid down the "Virsa Singh Test", i.e. for murder under Section 300 clause thirdly:
There must be intention to inflict the injury,
The injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
If these two are satisfied, it is murder.
Case 4: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)
Facts:
Commander Nanavati, upon discovering his wife's affair, confronted the lover and shot him dead. The defense argued grave and sudden provocation.
Held:
Supreme Court rejected the defense. It held that sufficient time had passed between provocation and the act, which gave time to cool off.
Importance:
This case is a landmark for understanding Exception 1 to Section 300 (Grave and Sudden Provocation). The court held that if the accused has time to cool down, the exception won’t apply, and it would amount to murder.
Case 5: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagat Ram (AIR 1954 SC 714)
Facts:
The accused beat the deceased with a stick, causing head injuries which led to death. The intention was to beat, not to kill.
Held:
The court held that the act was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as there was no intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause death.
Importance:
This case highlights that even if death is caused, lack of intention to cause death or deadly injury can reduce the offense from murder to culpable homicide.
Case 6: Emperor v. Dhirajia (1940 All LJ 721)
Facts:
A woman, running away from her abusive husband, jumped into a well with her child. She survived, but the child died.
Held:
The court held her liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, since she had the knowledge that her act could result in the death of the child, though no intention.
Importance:
Knowledge without intention can still amount to culpable homicide under Section 299, but not necessarily murder under Section 300.
5. Conclusion
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide lies mainly in:
Intensity of intention
Probability of death
Circumstances and exceptions under Section 300
Courts analyze intention, knowledge, and the nature of injury to determine whether a homicide amounts to murder or not. The importance of exceptions under Section 300 also plays a significant role in this classification.
RELATED Blog
0 comments