Difference between culpable homicide

and Murder in the IPC

Introduction:
A person killing another is one of the most known wrongs known to humans since ancient
times. Any person knows that killing another is a wrong and the majority of humanity has
come to collective agreement that killing of another in general is wrong. However, Humanity
struggles with wrong and right when the situations get more complex.

This issue of complexity was tackled by the law-makers of time immemorial who all arrived
at different solutions. In India and a few other former colonies of the UK, the Indian Penal
Code is in effect where such wrongs are defined as crimes or offences. This esay will
analyse the background of the IPC and murder specifically, and how murder and culpable
homicide have been differentiated and for what purpose.

Background:
Ancient India:
Ancient India heavily followed the concept of dharma as a basis of legal litigations, laws and
treatises. The main legal treatises were the Artha shastra and manu smriti the legal systems
were Dharma Shastra, Artha Shastra and Charitra (religious, secular and customatic law).
The courts were organised and followed the jury system where more than one judge were
preferred. Judges were to observe the accused psychologically. Integrity was seen as very
important in the judicial process as evidenced by strict punishments for false testimonials.

The law was split into criminal and civil, called Artha-Vivada(civil) and Himsra Samudbava
Vivada(criminal) which was further divided into assault, defamation, severe violations and
adultry. In dharma, as part of the pancha sila, killing of another is seen as a grave offence.
This includes not only humans but animals.

This was followed by use of caste system and eventually muhammadan law in mediaeval
India.

Emergence of common law in India

Common law had concepts of murder and manslaughter, similar to culpable homicide in the
IPC today. Manslaughter was when one kills another unintentionally or in the head of the
moment. This was further divided into voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter
where the difference is that voluntary was in a fit of rage and involuntary was accidental in
nature. Murder requires “Malice aforethought” much like the Mens Rea
(which was also part of the common law system)today where the killing must be deliberate
and with intent to cause deadly harm.

These ideas of murder were implemented into the IPC which came into effect in 1862 where
sections 299 and 300 corresponded to culpable homicide and murder respectively. This
difference was necessitated by the difference in punishments. The reason for the difference
between manslaughter and murder was the difference in punishment awarded between the
two as manslaughter was seen as a lesser offence, the same concept was added in IPC as
culpable homicide and murder.

Short Note on current status of murder and

culpable homicide in BNS(Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita)
● Culpable homicide on the whole has a similar Phrasing however the way it is framed
is different in that it is more evolved(including and clarifying more instances) but the
basics, such as intention and knowledge remain the same.
● Murder also follows a similar trend in that the basics of murder such as intention
remain the same however the framing is in such a manner as to be more clear and
include a clear border as to what is and isn't murder.

Murder:
Definition:
According to Section 300 of the IPC:
“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—
2ndly.—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—
3rdly.—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
—
4thly.—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.”
Murder is also sometimes referred to as culpable homicide amounting to murder in many
legal spaces. The IPC Provides a definition that builds on top of culpable homicide(hence its
other name) and gives alternate related definitions as to clarify any questions of murder or
not that may arise from the definition(essentially ensuring it is interpreted more or less the
same way always).

Ingredients:
● There must be an intention to cause the death of the person at question.
● There must be an act or harm that causes such bodily injury that is likely to cause
death(Actus Reus).
● There must be knowledge that such an act will likely cause the death of the person to
whom the act is committed.

Punishments:
The punishment for murder is laid by Section 302 of IPC. Murder is a non-bailable,
cognizable offence where the punishments are Death(very rare and only in certain
circumstances), imprisonment of life(usually reduced by good behaviour) along with a
fine(not independently charged).

Defences for murder:

General defences such as self defence(sec 100), private defence(sec 99), insanity(sec 84),
intoxication(sec 85) and other defences that can be used to reduce murder to a culpable
homicide.

However defences such as intoxication is very rare and it requires that the intoxication is
involuntary and is at such a point where one is not able to make reasonable judgements.
Self defence is defence of oneself against an immediate threat and private defence is the
same but for private property.

Examples:
1)A, a normal rational person shoots B as revenge with the intention to kill B. B dies, A is
said to have committed murder.

2)A points a gun at B and threatens to shoot B if B does not comply with the command to
hand over B’s purse. B shoots A in return and A dies. B can claim protection under the
defence of self-defence where B protected himself against the immediate lethal threat.

Culpable Homicide:
Definition:
Section 299 IPC:
“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.”

Culpable homicide in general is a less severe crime compared to murder. Culpable homicide
is also referred to as Culpable homicide not amounting to murder to reflect its lesser
severity. The lesser severity is from the idea that culpable homicide has a “lesser” intention
and knowledge and as such is typically punished less.

Ingredients:
● There must be an act of one person that caused the death of another(only human)
(Actus Reus).
● The act need not have caused the death of the person to whom it was it intended
and may also include the omission of an act where it is an offence and in some
direction is a breach of law.
● The act must have been done with: 1)intention to cause death where the Committer
of the act expects the lethal consequence of the victim. 2)even if the intention isn't to
cause death but the act causes sufficient bodily harm as to likely cause death 3)
knowledge where the commmiter is of certainty that the act by its commission is likely
to cause death.

Punishments:
Section 304 IPC states the punishments for the offence of culpable homicide. The possible
punishments are imprisonment of life, imprisonment for a period up to 10 years and a
fine(not charged separately).

Defences:
Culpable homicide in general also has nearly the same defences as murder in that self-
defence and private defence, insanity and accident may be claimed as defences. Negligence
is not of any relevance to these offences.

Examples:
1) A hears a loud sound at night and checks outside the house with his gun fearing that
he was being robbed. A shoots B, his brother believing him to be a robber. B dies. A
has likely caused culpable homicide not amounting as there was intention to kill but
not intention to kill the brother.
2) A is a weaponsmith who makes guns. A makes a gun and intends to test it in his
shop’s range. A loads the gun with what he believed was a blank round and fires at a
test target. However the round was a real round as someone in the shop had
misplaced the blanks with the real rounds and as such the bullet goes through the
target and kills B on the other side. A is said to have committed culpable homicide
 not amounting to murder as he did not intend to kill B and was under a misconception
that he was firing a blank. A also lacked knowledge.

Key differences between the two offences:

Murder and culpable homicide are in general similar crimes and what distinguishes them is
the “level of intention and knowledge” where there is a thin line between what intention and
knowledge is sufficient for murder and not for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Essential ingredients of differences:

● All murders are a form of culpable homicide but not all culpable homicides are
murders, as murder is also called culpable homicide amounting to murder so its
evident it is a part of culpable homicide itself.
● Murder is a more serious and aggravated form of culpable homicide.
● The knowledge of the likeliness of death is higher in murder than in culpable
homicide.
● In State of Andhra Pradesh vs Rayavarpu Punnayya, the court also establishes
that intention must be clear to kill someone, the reason for death must not be remote
and there must be a premeditation to kill for it to be culpable homicide amounting to
murder.
● The probability of causing death must be higher in murder.

Exceptions where murder can be reduced to culpable homicide

not amounting to murder:
● Sudden and grave provocation: there must be a grave and sudden provocation,
where the provocation causes loss of self control in the offender. The death of the
provocer or other person must be by accident or mistake.
● Private defence: The act committed must be: 1)In the right of private/self-defence
2)in good faith, 3)of no premeditation and without intention of causing more than
necessary harm.
● Offence committed by public servant: The act committed by the public servant must
be in is given powers under the law and must be authorised and legal. There must
also be an advancement of public justice, good faith and no ill-will towards the victim.
● Death caused by sudden fight:There must be a physical combat between two or
more persons and must not be pre arranged(no premeditation) where the death is to
be caused in the fight, no undue advantage or cruelty in part of the offender and must
occur in the heat of passion.
● Death caused by consent: In rare cases, death caused by a reasonable major
consents to death or the risk of death, where the consent is free, the offence may be
reduced to culpable homicide.
Case laws:
1)K.M. Nanavati v. The State of Maharashtra where it was ruled that if there is a time gap,
there is a proof of premeditation and hence one cannot invoke any defences of sudden
provocation.

Works Cited:
1)Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: The Indian Penal Code, 35th Edn (2 Vols)

2)Firm, Century Law. “Murder And Culpable Homicide Complete Explanation IPC.”
Mondaq, 27 May 2024, www.mondaq.com/india/personal-injury/1468218/murder-and-
culpable-homicide--complete-explanation-ipc.

3)“Culpable Homicide, Section 299 of IPC - Drishti Judiciary.” Drishti Judiciary,

www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-indian-penal-code/culpable-homicide.

4) The Indian Penal Code.