Author:- Palash Jain, a Student of University of Petroleum Energy Studies
Email id :- palashj916@gmail.com
Introduction:
In the realm of criminal law, culpable homicide and murder are distinct legal categories that carry different implications and consequences. Drawing a comparison between culpable homicide as genes and murder as species provides an intriguing perspective on their nature and classifications. This blog seeks to delve into the concepts of culpable homicide and murder, examining their differences, similarities, and the significance of these legal categories in the context of criminal justice.
Understanding Culpable Homicide:
Culpable homicide encompasses various forms of unlawful killings, ranging from unintentional acts to reckless conduct resulting in someone's death. Similar to genes, culpable homicide represents a diverse set of elements, each with its own characteristics and legal implications. The term "culpable" indicates that the person responsible for the act can be held accountable for their actions.
Exploring Murder as a Species:
Murder, on the other hand, can be seen as a specific "species" within the broader category of culpable homicide. Murder involves the intentional and premeditated killing of another person, accompanied by malice aforethought. Like species, murder possesses distinct characteristics that set it apart from other forms of unlawful killing, emphasizing the gravity and moral culpability associated with this act.
Legal Distinctions:
In legal terms, the differentiation between culpable homicide and murder holds significant importance. Murder carries more severe legal consequences due to its intentional nature and the presence of malice aforethought. The law recognizes the distinct moral culpability involved in premeditated killings, necessitating stricter punishments as a deterrent and a means of upholding justice.
Intent and Mens Rea:
One of the key differentiating factors between culpable homicide and murder lies in the intent or mens rea. Culpable homicide may involve varying levels of intent, ranging from recklessness to negligence. Murder, on the other hand, requires a specific intent to cause the death of another person, along with the requisite mental state, such as malice aforethought or premeditation.
Society's Response:
The legal categorization of culpable homicide and murder reflects society's understanding of the varying degrees of moral culpability and the need for corresponding legal responses. The distinction allows for a nuanced approach to criminal justice, considering the intent, circumstances, and societal impact of the act. It aims to balance punishment, rehabilitation, and the protection of society's interests.
Complexities and Interpretations:
Determining the nature of a specific killing and assigning it to the appropriate legal category can be complex. Legal systems face challenges in assessing the intent, mental state, and circumstances surrounding an act, often relying on evidence, testimonies, and expert opinions. Interpretations may vary across jurisdictions, leading to debates and evolving legal precedents.
Conclusion:
Culpable homicide and murder serve as important legal categories in the criminal justice system, differentiating between various forms of unlawful killings based on intent, mental state, and moral culpability. Understanding the relationship between these categories, viewing culpable homicide as genes and murder as species, allows for a deeper examination of their distinct characteristics and societal implications. By recognizing and defining these legal categories, societies strive to uphold justice, deter potential offenders, and safeguard the rights and well-being of individuals.
Moreover if we further look in this topic-
Culpable homicide is a broad term that encompasses any intentional killing that is not justified or excused. Murder is a specific type of culpable homicide that is characterized by the intent to kill or the knowledge that death is likely to result from the actions.
In legal terms, culpable homicide is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being with the intention of causing death or with knowledge that death is likely to result." Murder is defined as "culpable homicide with the intention of causing death."
The distinction between culpable homicide and murder is important because the punishment for murder is more severe than the punishment for culpable homicide. In India, the punishment for murder is life imprisonment or death, while the punishment for culpable homicide can be as little as three years' imprisonment.
The analogy of genes and species can be used to explain the relationship between culpable homicide and murder. Culpable homicide is the "gene" that gives rise to murder, which is the "species." In other words, all murders are culpable homicides, but not all culpable homicides are murders.
There are a number of factors that can distinguish culpable homicide from murder. One factor is the intent of the accused. If the accused intends to kill the victim, then the offense is murder. However, if the accused does not intend to kill the victim, but is aware that death is likely to result from their actions, then the offense is culpable homicide.
Another factor that can distinguish culpable homicide from murder is the motive of the accused. If the accused kills the victim for a reason that is considered to be "justifiable" or "excusable," then the offense is culpable homicide. However, if the accused kills the victim for a reason that is not considered to be justifiable or excusable, then the offense is murder.
The distinction between culpable homicide and murder is a complex one, and there are a number of factors that can be considered when determining whether an offense is murder or culpable homicide. However, the analogy of genes and species can be a helpful way to understand the relationship between these two offenses.
In addition to the factors mentioned above, there are a number of other factors that can be considered when determining whether an offense is murder or culpable homicide. These factors include the age of the accused, the mental state of the accused, and the circumstances of the killing.
The punishment for murder or culpable homicide will depend on the specific facts of the case. However, in general, the punishment for murder is more severe than the punishment for culpable homicide.
If you have been charged with murder or culpable homicide, it is important to speak to an attorney as soon as possible. An attorney can help you understand the charges against you and can represent you in court.
Types of homicides
As a result, there are two sorts of homicides: (1) lawful homicides and (2) unlawful homicides. Lawful homicides are ones that fall under the IPC’s Chapter on General Exceptions and are hence not penalised. The homicides that are penalised under the Code clearly fall within the category of unlawful homicides.
Lawful homicides can be divided into two categories based on the nature of the ‘general exceptions’ that surround the homicide: excusable homicides, and justifiable homicides. As a result, the IPC recognises three types of homicide. There are three types of murders:
• Excusable
• Justifiable, and
• Unlawful or criminal (i.e. killings that are neither excused nor justified).
The ‘Offenses Affecting Life’ under Chapter XVI of the IPC deals with homicide offences. It is made up of four homicide offenses, namely:
1. Culpable homicide that does not amount to murder,
2. Culpable homicide that does amount to murder,
3. Death by a rash or negligent act, and
4. Dowry death.
Culpable homicide
According to Section 299 of IPC, a person who commits culpable homicide does an act with the intent of causing death, or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.
Illustration:
A is aware that Z is hiding behind a bush. B is completely unaware of this. A causes B to shoot at the bush with the intent of causing, or knowing that it is likely to cause, Z’s death. Z is killed by B’s bullets. B may be innocent in this case, but A has committed the crime of culpable homicide.
Essential ingredients of culpable homicide
The following are the essential elements of culpable homicide:
•a person must be dead;
•the death must have been caused by the act of another person; and
•the act causing death must have been done with:
(a) the intention of causing death; or
(b) the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death; or
(c) with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.
Explanations for Section 299 IPC
The definition itself specifies three scenarios in which the presence or absence of particular criteria in the cause of death is recognised as culpable homicide. Explanations 1-3 deal with these scenarios.
Explanation 1
It describes a circumstance in which the injured individual has a disorder, sickness, or bodily infirmity that has hastened his death. The fact that his death was expedited or hastened by the sickness or disease he was already suffering from does not relieve the person who caused the damage of guilt. In other words, the person who inflicted the harm cannot avoid criminal liability for culpable homicide by claiming that the person wounded would not have died if he had not suffered from the condition or ailment.
For instance, A is suffering from diabetes. B with the intention of hastening the death of A gave him a lot of sweets. The intended victim ate the sweets, as a result of which, his blood sugar level went high and eventually resulted in his death. Thus, B is criminally liable.
Explanation 2
It describes a circumstance in which an injured person may have recovered and avoided death if he had received early and appropriated medical treatment. In such cases, the fact that the wounded person died as a result of his inability to obtain adequate medical care cannot be used to absolve the person who caused the harm in the first place of liability.
For instance, A is suffering from diabetes. B with the intention of hastening the death of A gave him a lot of sweets. The intended victim ate the sweets, as a result of which, his blood sugar level went high and eventually resulted in his death owing to the lack of immediate medical care. Here, the fact of the lack of immediate medical care cannot be considered to acquit B from liability.
Explanation 3
It refers to a somewhat different circumstance. It takes into account a child’s death while still in the mother’s womb. It is not culpable homicide if the child dies while still in the mother’s womb, according to the law. However, if any part of the child emerges from the mother’s womb, even if it is not completely developed, and the kid dies, it is considered a culpable homicide.
For instance, A is a pregnant woman who’s yet to deliver a baby in the hospital. Now, the head of baby B comes out of the womb. If the baby dies, it amounts to culpable homicide.
Section 301 IPC : culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended
By Section 301, if a person commits culpable homicide by causing the death of someone whose death he neither intends nor knows to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the same description as if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew to be likely to cause.
Murder
By Section 300, unless otherwise specified, culpable homicide is murder:
If the act that causes the death is done with the intent of causing death, or—
•A fires a shot at Z, intending to kill him. As a result, Z dies. A commits murder.
If the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows is likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
Knowing that B is suffering from an illness that makes a blow likely to kill him, A hits him with the intention of injuring him. As a result of the strike, B dies. Although the strike may not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in good health, A is guilty of murder. However, if A, unaware that B is suffering from a disease, strikes him with a blow that would not, in the ordinary course of nature, kill a person in good health, A is not guilty of murder if he did not intend to cause death or bodily injury that would, in the ordinary course of nature, kill a person in good health.
•If it is done with the aim of inflicting physical damage on another person, and the bodily injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the regular course of nature, or—
In the regular course of nature, A purposefully causes Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to kill a man. As a result, Z dies. A is guilty of murder in this case, despite the fact that he may not have planned to kill Z.
•If the person conducting the act is aware that it is so risky that it must, in all likelihood, result in death or physical harm that is likely to result in death and conducts the act without any justification for risking death or injury as stated.
Without justification, A shoots a loaded cannon into a gathering of people, killing one of them. A is guilty of murder, even though he did not have a planned plan to kill somebody in particular.
Exceptions
Exception I : grave and sudden provocation
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender causes the death of the person who delivered the provocation or any other person by mistake or accident while being deprived of the ability of self-control by grave and immediate provocation.
Illustration
Under the impact of emotions aroused by Z’s provocation, A murders Y, Z’s child, on purpose. In as much as the provocation was not offered by the child, and the child’s death was not caused by accident or misfortune while doing an act prompted by the provocation, this is murder.
The exception is subject to three exceptions of its own:
•The provocation should not have been sought voluntarily by the culprit as a justification for killing or harming anybody.
•The provocation should not be caused by an act carried out in accordance with the law or by a public official in the lawful exercise of his powers.
•The provocation is unrelated to any actions taken in the exercise of one’s right to self-defence.
*KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra*
The defendant in KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961), was a naval officer. He had three children and was married. His wife admitted to him one day that she had an affair with Prem Ahuja, the deceased. Enraged, the accused returned to his ship, got a semi-automatic pistol and six rounds from the ship’s shop, proceeded to the deceased’s flat, entered his bedroom, and shot him to death. Following that, the accused turned himself in to the police. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the accused’s actions were covered by Exception 1 of Section 300. The following postulates pertaining to the grave and abrupt provocation were established by the Supreme Court:
•The test of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation is whether a reasonable man from the same social group as the accused would be so outraged as to lose his self-control in the position in which the accused was put.
•In India, words and gestures may give grave and sudden provocation to an accused, so bringing his act within the first exception to Section 300 of the IPC.
•In determining whether the succeeding action produced significant and immediate provocation for committing the crime, the mental context formed by the victim’s earlier act may be taken into account.
•The fatal strike should be definitely connected to the effect of passion emanating from that provocation, not after the passion had cooled down due to the passage of time or otherwise allowing for premeditation and calculation.
The accused may have temporarily lost control after his wife admitted to her illegitimate relationship with the deceased, according to the Supreme Court. After dropping his wife and children off at a movie theatre, he proceeded to the ship, grabbed the handgun, conducted some official business, and then drove his car to the deceased’s workplace and afterwards to his home. By that time, three hours had passed, and he had had ample opportunity to restore his temper. As a result, the Court decided that the requirements of Exception 1 to Section 300 were not applicable. The defendant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Exception II : right of private defence
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Illustration
Z tries to horsewhip A, but not in a way that causes him serious injury. A pulls a handgun from his pocket. The attack against Z continues. A, believing in good faith that there is no other way to avoid being horsewhipped, shoots Z to death. A has merely committed culpable homicide, not murder.
*Nathan v. State of Madras*
The accused and his wife were in possession of some land that they had been farming for some years in Nathan v. State of Madras (1972). They had fallen behind on their lease payments to the landlady. The accused was forcibly evicted, and the landlord attempted to harvest the crop. As a result, the accused killed the dead in the exercise of his right to private property defence. The Supreme Court agreed with the claim that the incident occurred when the accused was exercising his legal right to private defence against the property. The right to private property defence was restricted to the degree of causing any harm other than death under Section 104, IPC because the deceased person was not armed with any lethal weapons and there could not have been any fear of death or severe harm on the part of the accused and his party. As a result, the accused’s right to private defence was violated, and the case was classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code because the act was done in good faith and without the intent to cause death. The accused’s death sentence was commuted to a term of life in prison.
Exception III : lawful act of a public servant
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, while acting as a public servant or assisting a public servant acting for the benefit of public justice, exceeds the powers granted to him by law and causes death by doing an act that he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the proper discharge of his duty as such public servant and without malice toward the person who is killed.
The following are the essential elements of this exception:
•The offence must have been committed by a public servant or a person assisting a public servant;
•The alleged act must have been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his official duties;
•He must have exceeded the powers granted to him by law;
•The act must have been done in good faith; and
•The public servant should have thought that his actions were legal and required for the proper fulfilment of his duties, and
•He should not have harboured any hatred toward the individual who died as a result of his actions.
In Dakhi Singh v. State (1955), a suspected thief was apprehended by a police officer and was being transported to a railway station. The robber was able to flee the speeding train. He was chased by the constable. He fired at him because he was unable to arrest him. However, he hit the fireman and killed him in the process. The case was found to be covered by this exception.
Exception IV : sudden conflict
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in the heat of emotion during a sudden conflict and without the offenders taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.
The only requirements for this exception are that:
the murder be committed without premeditation;
it is committed in a sudden fight;
it is committed in the heat of passion;
it is committed upon a sudden quarrel; and
It is committed without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.
In Manke Ram v. State of Haryana (2003), the Supreme Court granted the benefit of exception 4 to a police inspector who killed his subordinate in a bizarre combination of circumstances. In his chamber, he asked the deceased to drink. While they were drinking, the deceased’s nephew entered the room and summoned him for supper. As the deceased rose to leave the room, the appellant became enraged and began insulting him in obscene terms, which the deceased objected to. This enraged the appellant even more. Between the two of them, a brawl erupted. The appellant took out his service handgun and fired two bullets at the deceased, who was standing close. These shots were lethal. The Supreme Court overturned the Punjab High Court’s conviction under Section 302 of the Code, finding that the incident occurred in the heat of passion and granting the petitioner the benefit of exception 4. It was decided that, given the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant did not take unfair advantage of the fight or conduct in an unusual or harsh manner.
Exception V : death with consent
Culpable homicide is not murdered if the dead individual is beyond the age of eighteen years and suffers or risks death with his consent.
Illustration
A intentionally causes Z, a minor under the age of eighteen, to commit suicide by instigation. Because Z’s young, he was unable to consent to his own death; as a result, A had aided and abetted murder.
The following things must be proven:
•The death was induced with the deceased’s permission;
•The deceased was over the age of 18 at the time; and
•The consent provided was free and voluntary, and not based on fear or a misunderstanding of facts.
In the case of Narendra v. State of Rajasthan (2014), the deceased was a married woman named Nathi who had left her house and was living with her parents. There, she became close to the accused Narendra, and the two expressed their desire to marry. Because they belonged to the same gotra, the villagers were opposed to their desire to marry. Due to their dissatisfaction with the villagers’ rejection of their love, both of them agreed to commit suicide. Other villagers saw the accused inflicting harm on the corpse one day, but the victim had already died before they could save her. Although the accused had stab wounds in his abdomen, he was prevented from killing himself. The High Court found no evidence on the record that the deceased gave his free and voluntary consent. Later, the case reached the Supreme Court, where justices emphasised facts such as the fact that the deceased did not raise an alarm, that the accused was injured, and that he did not have a weapon when he entered the residence. Taking into account these facts, the Court found in favour of the deceased, awarding him benefits under Exception 5.
•Difference between culpable homicide and murder
The genus is culpable homicide, and the species is murder. All culpable homicides are murders, but not all culpable homicides are murders. So the distinction is between culpable homicide that amounts to murder and culpable homicide that does not amount to murder. The sole distinction between culpable homicide and murder is the degree of purpose and knowledge involved. The case would be classified as murder if there was a high level of purpose and knowledge. The case would be classified as responsible homicide if there was a lesser degree of purpose or knowledge. As a result, establishing categorical demarcations between culpable homicide and murder is challenging.
Intention
Clause (a) of Section 299 and clause (1) of Section 300 are the same. It is culpable homicide under Section 299 if death is caused by an act done with the goal of causing death (a). Unless one of the exceptions applies, it also amounts to murder under cl (1) of Section 300.
•Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death
Both Section 299 clause (b) and Section 300 clauses 2 and 3 deal with the purpose to inflict physical damage that is likely to result in death. In terms of Section 299(b), it simply states that if death is caused by an act committed with the goal of causing physical damage likely to cause death, it is considered a culpable homicide. While clause (2) of Section 300 states that an act must be done with the goal of inflicting bodily damage that is likely to result in death, it also states that the deliberate causation of bodily injury must be accompanied by the knowledge that the bodily injury is likely to result in death.
The term ‘likely’ in Section 299(b) refers to a simple possibility or likelihood that the harm may result in death. However, the word ‘likely’ in clause (2) of Section 300 conveys, to some extent, death certainty. This is explained in illustration (b) to Section 300. It implies that the accused has some unique knowledge of the deceased’s state, such as any ailment he may be suffering from, and that this information adds certainty to the fact that the bodily damage would result in death. The sole difference between the meanings of the words ‘likely’ in Sections 299(b) and 300(2) is the degree of likelihood.
In the case of clause (3) of Section 300, the purpose to inflict bodily damage is accompanied by the certainty that such physical injury is sufficient to cause death in the regular course of nature. The word ‘sufficient’ in the regular course of nature to cause death, like the phrase ‘likely’ in Section 299, imputes the certainty of death to a higher extent (b). Thus, the essential difference between death under Sections 299(b) and 300(2) and (3) is that under Section 299(b), the bodily injury caused is less likely to result in death, whereas under Section 300(2) and (3), the bodily injury caused is more likely to result in death.
• Knowledge
Sections 299(c) and 300(4) deal with situations in which the accused has information that the act is likely to result in death. The need for knowledge under Section 300(4) is a very high degree of risk of death, similar to the preceding Sections. This high probability of death is indicated in the clause’s final Section, which states that the act must be so immediately dangerous that it will almost certainly result in death or bodily injury that is likely to result in death, and that the act must be performed without any justification for taking the risk. Both clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of 300 apply to circumstances in which the accused has no intention of causing death or bodily damage but is aware that the act is basically dangerous. The degree of risk to human life determines whether the conduct is murder or culpable homicide. It is culpable homicide if death is a potential outcome; it is murder if death is the most likely outcome.
*State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh*
In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh (2003), the Supreme Court found the accused guilty of murder for inflicting an incised cut with a sword on the deceased’s neck, resulting in excessive bleeding and organ failure, on the grounds that he knew the bodily injury he caused would likely result in death.
Punishments for culpable homicide and murder
Section 304 IPC : penalty for culpable homicide that does not amount to murder
If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine.
Section 302 : murder
Murder is punishable under Section 302. It specifies a penalty of death or life imprisonment, as well as a monetary fine. If a court finds an offender guilty of murder under Section 300, the court must sentence the criminal to death or life imprisonment. No other lesser punishment can be imposed by the court.
References-
1. https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/1/82.pdf
2.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340526815_Discussion_on_the_difference_between_Murder_and_Culpable_Homicide_Not_Amounting_to_Murder_CHNAM
3. https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/ebd848cd-b7d3-4983-97dd-4f3ff071e103/downloads/INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE-%20COMPARATIVE%20STUDY%20OF%20CULPAB.pdf?ver=1609736957309
4. https://jcil.lsyndicate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Syed-Bushra.pdf
5. https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/murder-culpable-homicide-difference-ipc/
![Freedom of Speech in India [Indian Supreme court and Law of Sedition]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGLLUmLKq5Da6xDZplasOZHKRj-jOhWPkoeuy0_Eq757tUpOiHz-xooXwIlAjF0-hmBfi-TtMIv6on_sVgBXVq4wbWwnbsqLOcNX22S8C2aSq-ZuK3vn9wWAx8tXByYOBfwc0hs6b8RJV84YNFG2greouGKjup6g8kN-xVlchW33VHdSSmrhLC1BUEVbGp=w680)
