Murder and Culpable Homicide: Drawing The Fine Line

There exist a lot of confusion between the offence of culpable homicide and the offence of murder. They are defined under section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These two offences sound similar to each other but they are not synonymous to each other.  Courts have also vexed with the same problem. If the court loses the insight and fails to distinguish between the two offences; then it may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore the correct way to distinguish between these two offences is to give attention to the terms, and ingredients used in these sections. And ascertaining the intention of legislature behind those specific terms and ingredients used in sections 299 and 300 of Indian Penal Code. This article aims at identifying those terms and ingredients which distinguishes between the offence of culpable homicide and offence of murder.

INTRODUCTION

Homicide is defined as the killing of a human being.  This homicide may be lawful (in case of self-defence) or unlawful (murder, rash or negligent act). Section 299 and Section 300 of Indian Penal Code is one of two most important sections in the IPC. They deals with the offence of culpable homicide and offence of murder. On a general reading of both these sections and provisions therein, they sound similar. It usually becomes difficult to differentiate between the two. Courts often find themselves in a dilemma while deciding whether the given case attracts provisions of culpable homicide or murder. Further punishment for culpable homicide and murder is also different.

Section 302 provides for the punishment of murder which includes life imprisonment and death. While section 304 provides for the punishment of culpable homicide where if the act due to which death was caused was done intentionally. Then punishment it may attract is life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to 10 years. Whereas if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death; then the punishment includes imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. Therefore it becomes important to distinguish between these two offences. So that the offender deserves the suitable punishment and ends of justice can meet.

These two offences although appear the same but there exist various elements which differentiate between these two offences.  Culpable Homicide and Murder can be differentiated with the help of certain points. IPC provides for various essential ingredients and standards for both culpable homicide and murder. In all that the court requires is to observe those particular standards and ingredients in a given case. Thus the court can easily decide as to whether the given case falls under section 299 or section 300 of IPC. This article aims to understand the essential ingredients of these crimes and the ingredients which distinguish between these two crimes. First, this article discusses the offence of murder then it analyses the offence of culpable homicide. Later it discusses the differences between these two offences followed by the conclusion.

MURDER

The general meaning of murder involves the killing of a human being by another out of malice. Section 300 provides for the definition of murder. It states that the Culpable Homicide is murder if the act is done to cause death. Secondly if the act is done to cause such bodily injury; which the offender knows to be likely to cause death. Thirdly if the act is done to cause such bodily injury; which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Fourthly if the person commits an act which so imminently dangerous that such an would result in death in all probabilities.[1]

Therefore the offence of murder can be divided into four parts:

1. The act is done with the intention of causing the death of the person:  Those cases fall under this provision where the intention to kill a person is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case. To make case fall under firstly of section 300, the person must be in a completely conscious state of mind. And can contemplate all his actions. In this state, the accused must have deliberately performed an act causing the death of the person.  For example, A shoots B on his head with a gun to kill B. B dies in a consequence of such action by A. Here A is guilty under firstly of section 300 as death is the most probable result. Or certain when A shoots on the head of B.
2. The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender knows to be likely to cause death: The cases falling under this provision generally involves those circumstances where; the offender is well aware or has a knowledge about the delicate condition of the victim. And uses such knowledge to inflict injuries to the victim. As a consequence victim dies of such injuries even though those injuries inflict were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. For example, A has a knowledge that B is labouring from such a chest disease that the blow on B’s chest is likely to cause death. A uses this knowledge and gives a blow on B’s chest and B dies in a consequence.  Here A is guilty for murder although that blow would not have cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
3. The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death: The most important element of this provision is ‘intention to cause injuries’. The intention to cause a bodily injury is subjective and differs from case to case. Virsa Singh v State of Punjab[2] is a well-celebrated case in this regard, where the Supreme Court clarified the position of law under this provision. The court ruled that to determine whether the case falls under thirdly of section 300 then prosecution needs to prove; (i) the presence of bodily injury (ii) the nature of the injury must be proved which is purely related to biological investigation; (iii) There was an intention to cause that bodily injury i.e. the bodily injury inflicted did was not accidental or unintentional or some other kind of injury was intended by the accused and; (iv) the injury of the type described in above three elements is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and this part of the enquiry is purely objective and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.  For example, A intentionally gives a powerful blow on B’s head with an iron rod. It was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. B dies as a result of an injury he receives on the head due to A’s action. Here A may be held guilty under thirdly of sec 300. Even if his intention was only to cause bodily injury and not death.
4. An act committed of which person has knowledge that such an act is so imminently dangerous and would result in death in all probabilities: Fourthly of section 300 generally contemplates knowledge of those actions which would in all probability cause death or injury leading to death. To attract fourthly of section 300, such a knowledge on the part of the offender must exist that if the act is committed then it would result in death in all probabilities. And such an act is committed without any excuse for incurring risk.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Section 299 of IPC provides for the offence of culpable homicide. Section 299 states that the person commits the offence of culpable homicide if such a person does an act with the intention of causing death; or with the intention of causing such bodily injury; which is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that by such act he is likely to cause death.[3]

As per section 299, Culpable Homicide can be divided into three clauses:

1. Clause (a), the intention of causing death: The intention used under sec 299 is used in the ordinary sense. It means that an act is said to intentional if it is performed with a desire that certain consequences will follow it. It does not always mean a pre-mediated plan to kill a person. The intention of causing death by the act of the offender is a question of fact involving knowledge of the act, actions of the accused before committing the offence and after committing the offence and the circumstances which show such willingness to cause the death of the person.  However, the probability of death caused due to an act of offender is low.
2. Clause (b), Intention of causing such bodily injury as likely to cause death: The important expression used under in this part is ‘likely to cause death’. Here likely means probability and not a possibility and this expression convey a lower degree of likelihood of death.[4] In Kesar Singh[5] case, it was ruled that an injury is likely to cause death when the same is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death which in turn would indicate that death was the most probable result of it. In Whitehouse[6] case, the expression ‘likely’ was interpreted as a real risk which cannot be ignored and thus the accused was convicted who endangered the safety of aircraft by the persistent use of his mobile phones. ‘Likely’ under this clause indicates a lower risk of death.
3. Clause (c), Knowledge that such an act would likely cause death: Knowledge indicates the presence of conscious awareness of facts.[7] It is a strong word and involves the certainty of results and not merely a probability.[8] Knowledge is considered as third degree of intention. Under section 299, it is the least degree of mental element to constitute culpable homicide.  Clause (c) of section 299 include those cases where the offender has the knowledge of the act. Such an act is likely to cause death but the risk of death is low.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

Courts are often confronted with the question as to whether the case falls under the category of culpable homicide or murder.  Since on plain reading of these sections, they appear similar. It becomes a difficult task for courts to decide whether the given case falls under the ambit of section 299 or section 300.  This dilemma is cause when the court is not able to interpret correctly the true meaning of the ingredients. And thehe intention of the legislature in these sections.  Therefore the safest approach to these sections is to focus on keywords used in the various provisions of section 299 and 300. And interpreting them in light of these keywords and intention of the legislature. 

Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya [9]  gave the academic distinction between culpable homicide and murder. They are as follows:

1. Clause (a) of Section 299 and firstly of section 300: Firstly of section 300 produces exactly what is written under clause (a) of section 299. An intentional killing is always a murder. But the distinction between these two lies in the degree of risk of causing death to a human. If the likelihood of death is less then it is a culpable homicide. Otherwise if the death is the most probable result, then it is the offence of murder. For an instance, if A digs a pit with the intention of causing the death of B. Or knowledge that the death of B is likely to be caused and B falls in the pit and is killed. Hence A will be held liable for culpable homicide under section 299. As the likelihood of the death by falling in the pit is less. Contrast to this if A with the intention of causing the death of B shoots him on his head and B dies.Here A will be liable for murder under firstly of section 300. As the act of shooting someone on the head would most probably result into death.
2. Clause (b) of section 299 and secondly of section 300: Clause (b) of section 299 corresponds with secondly and thirdly of section 300.  Supreme Court observe that men’s rea require under secondly of 300 is the knowledge possessed by the offender about the peculiar condition or state of health of the victim and he uses such knowledge to intentionally cause bodily injury to the victim which proves to be fatal notwithstanding the fact that such an injury would not be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of a person having normal health.  Another important thing needed to be observed under secondly of 300 is that ‘intention to cause death’ is not an essential requirement of this clause. It would be sufficient that the offender had the intention to cause the bodily injury coupled with the knowledge that such a bodily injury will likely cause the death of the particular victim. Illustration of secondly of 300 can be where the offender intentionally gives a blow on the body of the victim coupled with the knowledge that victim is suffering from enlarging liver disease and such a blow would likely cause the death of such a particular victim due to the rupture of the liver. Unlike secondly of 300, Clause b of section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the victim. For example, if the offender does not possess special knowledge about the condition of the particular victim nor does have an intention to cause death or intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence would not be murder and would be merely a culpable homicide. Illustration of a case falling under clause b of section 299 would be where A not knowing that B is suffering from any disease and gives him a blow which would not be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of a normal healthy person.  Here A would be guilty of culpable homicide under section 299 and would not be guilty of murder even though he intended to cause injury. But since he lacks knowledge about the health condition of the victim, the offence would be treated as culpable homicide and not murder.
3. Clause (b) of section 299 and thirdly of section 300: Thirdly of section 300 talks about the intention of causing bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.  Whereas clause (b) of section 299 talks about the intention to cause bodily injury like to cause death. The key expression used under section 300 is ‘sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’ and the important expression used under section 299 is ‘likely to cause death’. The distinction is very fine and if overlooked then it would likely result in the miscarriage of justice.  This distinction lies in the degree of the probability of death caused due to the injury inflicted.  It is the degree of probability of death which determined whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder.  Word ‘likely’ is used under section 299 emphasis on ‘probable’ as is distinguished from mere possibility whereas ‘sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’ conveys the sense that the death would be the most probable result of the injury inflicted having regard to the ordinary course of nature.  Thus if there is a lower risk of death, clause b of section 299 would be attracted but if there is high degree of death or death is the most probable result then thirdly of section 300 would be attracted.
4. Clause (c) of section 299 and fourthly of section 300: Both the clauses require knowledge of the consequences leading to death. However fourthly of section 300 generally contemplate knowledge of those actions which would in all probability cause death or injury leading to death. To attract fourthly of section 300, such a knowledge on the part of the offender must exist that if the act is committed then it would result in death in all probabilities and such an act is committed without any excuse for incurring risk. For example, if a person fires a loaded gun in the crowd resulting in the death of the victim, he would be liable under fourthly of 300 as the act of firing a gun in the crowd indicates that the person firing in the crowd knew that such an act is imminently dangerous and will cause death in all probabilities or bodily injury as is likely to cause death to any person or persons present in the crowd and irrespective of this he fired a shot in the crowd without any excuse of incurring risk. Unlike fourthly of section 300 where the offenders possess knowledge of imminent death and death is the obvious result, clause c of section 299 includes those cases where the offender has the knowledge of the act that such an act is likely to cause death but the risk of death is low and there is less probability that such a knowledge on the part of the offender would likely result in the death of the victim.  Thus under clause c of section 299, the degree of risk of death is low as compared to the degree of death of under section fourthly of section 300 where death is the most certain result.

CONCLUSION

Both the offence of culpable homicide and murder involves the death of a human being.  Also, there is no straight-jacket formula to categorize offence as culpable homicide or murder. However, IPC distinguishes between the two offences based on the certain elements and provides for different punishment for them. There lies a very thin line difference between both the offences. This thin line difference is based upon the degree of the intention, knowledge and likelihood of death. All that the court needs to see is the degree of intention or knowledge and the likelihood of death. If from the facts of the case, the high degree of intention or knowledge and the high probability of death can be deduced then such an act would fall more under provisions of section 300 (murder).

However, if the degree of intention or knowledge and the probability of death is less and these factors can be deciphered from the facts of the given case, then the case would fall under one of the clauses of section 299 (culpable homicide).  Thus we can say that Culpable Homicide is the considered as genus and murder is considered as a part species. Alternative, one can say that ‘all murders are culpable homicide but not all culpable homicides are murder’.[10]

The table provides summary difference between the offence of culpable homicide and murder.

CLAUSE	CULPABLE HOMICIDE (Sec 299)	MURDER (Sec 300)
Clause (a) of section 299 and firstly of 300	Clause (a) provides for the offence of culpable homicide if the intention of the offender was to cause death or such bodily injury as likely to cause death. Here the degree of likelihood of death is less.	Firstly of section 300 provides for the offence of murder if the offender intentionally causes death. Here the acts of the offender are of such nature which increases the probability of death and death is the most certain result.
Clause (b) of section 299 and secondly of section 300	Clause (b) of section 299 provides for culpable homicide if the offender had the intention to cause bodily injuries that are likely to cause death.  Here the offender does not possess any knowledge about the fragile nature of the victim nor have the intention to cause bodily injuries which are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.	Secondly of section 300 requires that the offender must possess special knowledge about the victim’s condition and based upon such knowledge, he commits an act resulting into a bodily injury to the victim which proves to be fatal notwithstanding the fact that such an injury would not be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of a person having normal health.
Clause (b) of section 299 and thirdly of section 300	Clause (b) of section 299 provides for the offence of culpable homicide if the acts of the offender likely results in the death of the victim. ‘Likely’ under this clause conveys a sense of lower probability of death.	Thirdly of section 300 provides for the offence of murder where the injuries inflicted are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Here ‘sufficient’ conveys the high probability of death.
Clause (c) of section 299 and fourthly of section 300	Clause c provides for the offence of culpable homicide if the offender had a knowledge that such an act would likely to cause death but the risk of death is low and there is less probability that such a knowledge on the part of the offender would likely result in the death of the victim.	Fourthly of section 300 also talks about the knowledge on the part of the offender but here knowledge of the act must be such that the offender knows that death will be imminent or acts would result into bodily injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Here the threshold of knowledge and probability of death, both are very high.

---

[1] Sec 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860

[2] 1958 AIR 465

[3] Sec 299, Indian Penal Code, 1860

[4] Rajpal v. State of Haryana,(2006) 9 SCC 678

[5] Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753

[6] R v. Whitehouse, The Times, Dec. 10, 1999 (CA)

[7] Basdev v. State of Pepsu  AIR 1956 SC 488

[8] Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing, AzIR 2001 SC 2328

[9] State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya AIR 1977 SC 45

[10] State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya AIR 1977 SC 45