Culpable Homicide and

Murder
Forensic Psychology
4MPCL
“All murders are culpable homicide, but
all culpable homicides are not murder.”
Murder
• The term "Murder" traces its origin form the Germanic word "morth"
which means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed
by another person or a group of persons who have a pre-determined
intention to end life of the former.
• An offence will not amount to 'Murder' unless it includes an offence
which falls under the definition of culpable homicide as per the
definition of 'Murder' under IPC.
• All murders are culpable homicide but all homicides are not murders.
• Section 299 and Section 300 of Indian Penal Code deal with murder.
Homicide
• The word homicide is supposedly derived from Latin where "homo"
means man and "cida" means killing. Thus, homicide means the
killing of a man by a man. Homicide can be lawful or unlawful.
• Culpable homicide is punishable by law and is further divided into
two categories:
1. Culpable homicide amounting to murder
2. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
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.
• The following are the essential elements of culpable homicide:
1. a person must be dead;
2. the death must have been caused by the act of another person; and
3. 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.
Situation 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.
Situation 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.
Situation 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.
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—
Eg: 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—
Eg: 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.
Murder
• 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—
Eg: 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.
Eg: 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.
• There are two classes of culpable homicide:
• Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder: It is known as simple
murder.
• Culpable homicide not amounting to Murder: There is necessarily a
criminal or knowledge in both. The difference does not lie in quality;
it lies in the quantity or degree of criminality closed by the act. In
murder, there is greater intention or knowledge than in culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
What is the distinction then?
• The most confusing aspect is 'intention' as in both the provisions the
intention is to cause death. Hence, you have to consider the degree
of intention of offenders. If the person is killed in cold-blood or with
planning then it is murder because the intention to kill is in high
degree and not out of sudden rage or provocation. On other hand, if
the victim is killed without pre-planning, in sudden fight or in sudden
anger because of somebody's provocation or instigation, then such a
death is called culpable homicide. Hence, whether the act done is
culpable homicide or murder is a question of fact.
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.

• Eg: A is given grave and sudden provocation by C. A fires at C as a

result of this provocation. A didn't intend or have knowledge that his
act is likely to kill C, who was out of A's sight. A kills C. A is not liable
to murder but is liable to culpable homicide.
Exceptions to grave and sudden provocation
• The exception is subject to three exceptions of its own:
1. The provocation should not have been sought voluntarily by the
culprit as a justification for killing or harming anybody.
2. 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.
3. The provocation is unrelated to any actions taken in the exercise of
one’s right to self-defence.
KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
• 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
Judgement
• 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.
• In Shankar Diwal Wadu. v. State Of Maharastra (2008), according to the prosecution,
the accused Shankar Wadu is the brother of Mahu Wadu, who was assaulted by him
and died as a result of the assault.
• The event occurred on October 22, 1996, in Kaimad Wadu Pada, Laluka Wada, Thane,
where both the accused and the victim, as well as other close relatives, lived. The
accused sought to maintain Kamlibai, the widow of his brother Vasant, as his mistress,
according to the prosecution evidence, but she refused.
• The appellant was violently dragging Kamlibai to his residence on the day of the
occurrence. His brother Mahu (the deceased) told him at the time that he couldn’t
force and pull Kamlibai to his residence. The accused became outraged by such
unsolicited advice and lifted a wooden plank (Pat) and whacked Mahur on the head
with it, as well as kicking and punching him. Mahu died instantly. Yeshubai, a close
relative of both the offender and the victim, filed a complaint alleging his attack. The
investigation was launched after receiving this complaint, and the accused was
detained. The prosecution called up to eight witnesses to establish its accusation of
murder against the accused, and the learned trial judge, after weighing the evidence,
found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life in prison under section 302 / 506
of the Indian Penal Code, as well as a fine of Rs.50,000.
Important case law for this exception rule
• MUTHU V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU,((2007) ILLJ 9 MAD)
In this case, it was held by the Supreme Court that constant
harassment might deprive the power of self-control, amounting to
sudden and grave provocation.
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.

• Eg: 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 (1972)
• 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.

• Eg: If the police officer goes to arrest a person, the person tries to run
away and during that incident, if the police officer shoots the person,
the police officer will not be guilty of murder.
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.
Case Law
• 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/rage/fight
• 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.
Case Law
• 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.

• 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.
X intentionally causes Z, a minor under the
age of eighteen, to commit suicide by
instigation.

Murder or exception to murder?

Vasanth v. State of Maharashtra (1983)
• There existed prior animosity between the accused and the deceased in Vasanth
v. State of Maharashtra (1983). The accused and the dead were observed
fighting. The two were separated by a few people who were present. The
accused then rushed to his vehicle, drove it on the wrong side of the road and
straight into the deceased, knocking him down and driving over him, killing him.
The route on which the accident occurred was broad and lonely. The accused had
no cause or requirement to drive the jeep in the incorrect way.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the accused intentionally slammed his jeep into
the deceased and ran him over with the purpose to kill him. It’s worth noting that
the first clause of Section 300, ‘act done with the purpose to cause death,’ is the
same as the first clause of Section 299, which is likewise ‘performing an act with
the intent to cause death.’ As a result, an act that falls under clause (1) of Section
300 will also fall under Section 299, and it will constitute culpable homicide
amounting to murder in both cases.
State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh (2003)
• 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
• PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE - • PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER - SECTION
SECTION 304, IPC 302, IPC

• Culpable homicide is not murder if it falls 1. Whoever commits murder shall be

under any one of the five exceptions given punishable with death, or
under Section 300. 2. imprisonment for life and
• For culpable homicide not amounting to 3. shall also be liable to fine.
murder, Section 304 of IPC describes the
punishments as:
1. Imprisonment for life or
2. Imprisonment for either description of
a term extending up to ten years and/or
3. Fine.