Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Culpable Homicide
In a criminal case, the cardinal principle is that the accused is innocent till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The general burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution and it never shifts. Even in respect of the cases covered by Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is not absolved of its duty of discharging the burden. In this article, we shall discuss culpable homicide.
The word homicide has been derived from the Latin word ‘homo’ which means a man and ‘caedere’ which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing of a human being. The word “culpable” means a ‘blameworthy state of mind’. Thus culpable homicide refers to taking the life of another person, where the act has been done with criminal intent. Section 299 of IPC defines Culpable Homicide.
All cases of homicide are not culpable (punishable). Law distinguishes between lawful and unlawful homicide. For instance, killing in self-defence in pursuance of lawful authority or by reason of a mistake of fact is not culpable. Likewise, if death is caused by accident or misfortune or while doing an act in good faith and without any criminal intention for the benefit of the person killed, the man is excused from criminal responsibility for homicide.
Section 46 says “the word “death” denotes the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context”. Causing death must be of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least partially an infant under-delivery or just delivered.
Jabbar and his brothers went to Sanju’s house looking for Sanju. There they pushed Smt. Pangoli wife of Jamna, the brother of Sanju and kicked her on a side of her stomach. As a result, Smt Panguli, who was pregnant, was taken ill and gave birth prematurely to a seven-month-old baby which died. The question before the court was that whether the seven-month unborn child can be considered a person or not. The Court held that the term “Person” will also include a child whether born or unborn. Even if the child is unborn and within the womb of the mother, it is capable of being spoken as a “person”, if its body is developed sufficiently to make it possible to call it a child.
Section 299 of IPC:
Culpable Homicide Bare Act Provisions:
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.
Illustrations:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Explanations:
- 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.
- 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.
- The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause 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.
Explanation to Attached Illustrations to Section 299:
Illustration 1:
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.
In this case, A had the intention to kill Z. A had knowledge that this act can kill Z. But falling in a pit is likely to cause death and hence the offence gets reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If there is a 100% chance that it would cause death, then it would have been murder.
Illustration 2:
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.
In this case, A had the intention to kill Z. A had knowledge that this act can kill Z. But fired bullet by B may or may not hit Z and thus it is likely to cause death and hence the offence gets reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If there is a 100% chance (if B is a sharpshooter) that it would cause death, then it would have been murder.
Illustration 3:
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.
In this case, the intention of A is to steal a fowl and his act is to fire at the fowl. It is not guilty of culpable homicide. If A would have knowledge that B is beyond the fowl and his intention was to kill B, then it would amount to murder because he is firing at B with the intention to kill b under the pretext of killing the fowl.
Explanation to Attached Explanations to Section 299:
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.
If the bodily injury so inflicted was not with such intention or knowledge as required in Sec 299 the offence is not culpable homicide. If the attacking person knew about the disorder, disease or bodily infirmity of the deceased person (whose death was certain) and by the attack, the attacker would have accelerated the death of the deceased. The attacker can be booked under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
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.
It simply means if death results from an injury voluntary caused, the person who causes that injury is deemed to have caused death, although the life of the victim might have been saved if proper treatment, provided that the treatment was given in good faith by a competent person.
The accused has attacked the deceased and the injuries inflicted on him by the accused caused his death. Now the defence of the accused is deceased after suffering injuries didn’t go to a proper medical practitioner and he didn’t get proper medical treatment. If he would have got proper medical attendance he would have been saved. This defence is untenable by virtue of this explanation.
If X caused simple injury to Z and Z subsequently died of septic meningitis which developed on account of the use of wrong remedies and neglect in treatment, such death cannot be said to have been caused by the bodily injury within the terms of this explanation.
InKumbhar Narsi Bechar vs The State of Gujarat, 1961, AIR 1962 Guj 77 case, the accused inflicted injuries to deceased named Mahendra such that to treat him some operation was performed. Due to the cumulative result of original injuries and subsequent operation must have accelerated death. The Court held that in order that a person should be held responsible for having caused the death, it is not necessary that his act should be the immediate cause of the death in the medical sense. the court also held that the appellant must be deemed to have caused the death of the injured Mahendra.
Explanation 3:
The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause 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.
The life of a child, when it remains in the womb, is part of a mother’s life, and not separate and distinct existence. But as soon as any part of the child has been brought forth from the womb, the child is regarded as a living human being. The clause “though the child may not have breathed‟ suggests that a child may be born alive, though it may not breath (respire), or it may respire so imperfectly that it may be difficult to obtain clear proof that respiration takes place. Causing death must be of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least partially an infant under-delivery or just delivered.
In order to hold a person liable under the impugned section, there must be causing of death of a human being as defined under Section 46 of the Code. The causing of death of a child (man or woman S. 10) in the mother‟s womb is not homicide as stated in this Explanation. But the person would not be set free. He would be punishable for causing miscarriage either under section 312 or 315 of the Code depending on the gravity of the injury.
More Examples of Culpable Homicides:
- Y is diagnosed with terminal illness and needs certain drugs to live from day to day. A confines him in a room and denies him his medication. As a result, Y dies. A is guilty of culpable homicide.
- G mows over a pedestrian deliberately. The pedestrian bleeds on the road and no one helps him and he dies as a result of G’s actions. G cannot take the defence that if the pedestrian had taken medical treatment at the right time, he would have lived.
Ingredients of Culpable Homicide:
- An act of a person which has caused a death of another person;
- the act causing death should have been 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 it was likely to cause death.
An Act:
The very first test to decide whether a particular act or omission would be covered by the definition of culpable homicide, is to verify whether the act done by the accused has caused the death of another person. The relevant consideration for such verification is to see the death is caused as a direct result of the act committed by the accused.
Section 32, I.P.C the word ‘act’ has been given a wider meaning in the Code in as much as it includes not only an act of commission, but illegal omissions as well and the word ‘illegal, is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for civil action (Sec.43). Therefore death caused by illegal omission will amount to a Culpable homicide. Death may be caused by a hundred and one means, such as by poisoning, drowning, striking, starving, beating and so on and so forth.
Death may also be caused by the effect of words such as by making some communication to another person which caused excitement which results in death. For example, A with the intention or knowledge aforesaid gives B his choice whether B will kill himself, or suffer lingering torture; B kills himself by taking poison. A would be liable for culpable homicide.
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. For instance, stabbing a person in vital organs, shooting someone at point-blank range, or administering poison include instances that would constitute culpable homicide. the term ‘act’ also includes ‘illegal omissions;
The section says causing death by doing an act, so given the special circumstances certain acts which may not involve an 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.
In order to hold a person liable under the impugned section, there must be causing of death of a human being as defined under Section 46 of the Code. Causing of death must be of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least partially an infant under delivery or just delivered.
In Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 2604 case, Multiple injuries were caused to the victim, who died after a fortnight. Medical reports gave a cause of death as a short supply of blood to kidneys as a result of multiple injuries on the victim. The court held that the death was caused on account of injuries to the victim inflicted by the accused. Hence the accused is responsible for the death of the victim.
In Joginder singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1876 case, the deceased Rupinder Singh had teased the sister of the accused. In retaliation, the two accused went to Rupinder’s house and shouted that they had come to take away the sister of Rupinder Sigh. In the meantime, the cousins of Rupinder Singh intervened. One of them was given a blow on the neck by the accused. Meanwhile, Rupinder Singh started running towards the field. The accused started chasing him and Rupinder Singh jumped into a well. As a result of this, he sustained head injuries, which made him loose consciousness and thereafter he died due to drowning. The Supreme Court held that the accused were 15 to 20 feet from Rupinder Singh, when he jumped into the well. There was no evidence to show that the accused drove Rupinder Singh into the well or that they left him no option but to jump into the well. Under these circumstances, it was held that the accused could have caused the death of Rupinder Singh, and hence they were entitled to be acquitted of the charge of murder. The Court further observed that the connection between the act and the death caused by the act must be direct and distinct; and though not immediate it must not be too remote.
In Radha Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989) 1 Crimes 721 case, the husband having suspected the faithfulness of his wife has deliberately thrown a grinding stone on her head when she was asleep resulting in her death. The accused was punished under charges of murder under Section 302.
In Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 CrLJ 1773 (Mad) case, the accused gave a single blow with the wooden log when he was extremely angry to the victim and caused the death of the victim. The Court held that it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and conviction of the accused was altered from Section 302 into Section 304.
To attract the provisions of this Section it suffices if the death of a human being is caused whether the person was intended to be killed or not. For instance, B with the intention of killing A in order to obtain the insured amount gave him some sweets mixed with poison. The intended victim ate some of the sweets and threw the rest away which were picked up by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. It was held that B is liable for the murder of the children though he intended to kill only A.
Intention:
The act must be 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, in situation where there are injuries and there are investigating 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.
The word ‘intention’ in clause (a) to Section 299, of the Code has been used in its ordinary sense, i.e., a volitional (own will) act done without being able to foresee the consequence with certitude.
The connection between the ‘act’ and the death caused thereby must be direct and distinct, and though not immediate it must not be too remote. If the nature of the connection between the act and the death is in itself obscure (uncertain), or if it is obscured by the action of concurrent causes, or if the connection is broken by the intervention of subsequent causes, or if the interval of time between death and the act is too long, the above condition is not fulfilled.
The words “likely to” indicates probability. It is the degree of probability of death which determines whether the culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or of the lowest degree.
Where a constable fired five shots in succession at another constable resulting in his death, it was held that it would be native to suggest that he had neither intention to kill nor any knowledge that injuries sufficient to kill in the ordinary course of nature would not follow. His acts squarely fell in clauses 2,3 and 4 of Sec.300, I.P.C i.e., Culpable Homicide amounting to murder.
In Laxman Case 1974 CrLJ 1271 (SC) case, Accused inflicted 34 injuries with an axe and stick on the victim. Some of the injuries damaged the kidneys and lungs of the victim which eventually lead to the death of the victim. The number of injuries indicates that the accused was making sure that the victim should die at any cost. Here there is no probability of inflicting injuries but to kill the victim. It is case of murder.
In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1876 case, it has been held that the connection between the act and the death caused by the act must be direct and distinct; and though not immediate it must not be too remote. Where person jumped into a well in order to save himself from two chasing persons and dies, the death of the victim was not caused by an act of chasing persons with intention or knowledge specified in Sec. 299 With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
In Ramakoteswar Rao v. State of A.P., 1986 CrLJ 680 A.P. case, a sudden quarrel arose between the deceased and accused. The deceased threatened the accused with dire consequences. The accused stabbed the deceased with a knife. The Court held that the offence would come under Section 299 and convicted the accused under Section 304 part-1.
Knowledge:
“Knowledge‟ is a strong word and imports certainty and not merely a probability. Here knowledge refers to the personal knowledge of the person who does the act. 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.
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.
If the death is caused under circumstances specified under Section 80, the person causing the death will be exonerated under that Section. But, if it is caused in doing an unlawful act, the question arises whether he should be punished for causing it. The Code says that when a person engaged in the commission of an offence, without any addition on account of such accidental death. The offence of Culpable Homicide supposes an intention, or knowledge of the likelihood of causing death. In the absence of such intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be grievous hurt or a simple hurt.
It is only where death is attributed to an injury which the offender did not know would endanger life would be likely to cause death and which in normal conditions would not do so notwithstanding death being caused, that the offence will not be Culpable Homicide but grievous or simple hurt. Every such case depends upon the existence of abnormal conditions unknown to the person who inflicts injury. Once it is established that an act was a deliberate act and not the result of accident or rashness or negligence, it is obvious that the offence would be culpable homicide.
In Kesar Singh v State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753 case, the Court said that knowledge denotes a bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which the human mind might itself remain supine and inactive whereas intention connotes a conscious state in which mental faculties are roused into activity and summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and specified end which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself.
In Shuklal v. State, 1953 CrLJ 1815 Punj case, the accused stabbed the deceased with a blunt sided weapon. There were 17 injuries on the body of the victim and all were simple in nature. The Punjab High Court held that the case fell under the third alternative mentioned in Section 299 i.e. “doing an act ….. with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death”. The Court convicted the accused under Section 304 part-2.
In State of Kerala v. Mani, 1992 CrLJ 1682 Ker case, the accused pushed the victim in deep water. The Court held that the act of the accused fell under the third alternative mentioned in Section 299 i.e. “doing an act ….. with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death”. The Court convicted the accused under Section 304 part-2.
In Babu v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 CrLJ 378 Bom case, the accused and deceased were cousins and were residing in the houses, side by side. In a quarrel accused assaulted the deceased and gave a stick blow on the head of the deceased. On account of this injury, the death of the deceased took place. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of IPC. The divisional board of Bombay High Court converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 part-2 opining that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased or to cause such bodily injury as likely to cause death. However, he knew that the tick blow would cause such bodily injury or as was likely to cause death.
In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2020 case, During celebratory gunfire the accused held the gun towards the roof of the house unfortunately the bullets got deflected and 5 people were hurt and 2 of them succumbed to their injuries. The accused pleaded not guilty as he had no intention to cause anyone’s death. The court noticed that the accused was carrying a loaded gun in public and he did not take proper care of his surroundings. He must’ve had an idea that the pellets could deflect and hurt someone. The court held him guilty. The offense amounted to culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC, punishable under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC.
Kinds of Culpable Homicides:
Culpable homicide is of two kinds:
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Culpable homicide amounting to murder
Section 299 cannot be taken to be the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Actually culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not defined in the code but it is defined as the part of Section 300.
In Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa, 1997 CriLJ 2204 case, the Court observed that Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is the genus and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is the species. Hence, there are no independent sections regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder it is the part of Section 300 of IPC which defines Murder.
What is to be Proved?
The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Unless one of the mental states mentioned in ingredient is present, an act causing death cannot amount to Culpable Homicide.
Example: A constable who had loaded but defective gun with him wanted to arrest an accused who was going on a bullock cart by climbing on the cart and there was a scuffle between him and the accused and in course of which the gun went off and killed the constable, it was held that accused could not be held guilty of Culpable Homicide (S. 80).
Punishment for Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder (Section 299 IPC):
For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide.
- The first is, what may be called, ‘culpable homicide of the first degree’. This is the gravest 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
Section 304 of IPC:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 299 IPC).
Section 304 part-1 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever causes death with intention or causes such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused because of the act, shall be liable for life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 304 part-2 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever causes death without the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or doesn’t have the knowledge that his act could cause death shall be sentenced to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Conclusion:
Whoever causes death o 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. According to the Indian Penal Code, there are two types of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Sec 299 IPC), Culpable homicide amounting to murder. (Sec 300 IPC). Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec 299) is given under Section 304 which is either imprisonment for 10 years or fine or both. It can extend to life imprisonment if there was intention present.