Lecture 10

 Homicide (Latin homa-man, cide- I cut) is the

killing of a human being by a human being.
Causing death of an animal is not murder, It
might amount to the offence of mischief or to
cruelty to animals. It may be lawful or
unlawful. Lawful homicide (cases falling
under (General Exceptions 76-106)) is of two
types- excusable and justified homicide.
 A) Culpable homicide not amounting to
murder (Sec 299)
 B) Murder (Sec 300), and,
 C) Homicide by rash or negligent acts (Sec
304-A).
 Sec 299 defines Culpable Homicide which is a
wider offence than that of murder; “Whoever
causes death,
 A) by doing an act with the intention of
causing death, or
 B) with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death , or
 C) with the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death, commits the offence
of culpable homicide. “
 (a) 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.

 (b) 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.

 (c) 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.
1) Whoever causes death – It is immaterial if the
person whom the accused intended to kill was not
killed but some other person. The death could be
caused by words deliberately used by a person. For
example , a seriously ill person may die by hearing
some agitating words.
2) The death must result as a proximate and not a
remote consequence of the act of violence. There
should not be the intervention of any considerable
change of circumstances between the act of
violence and the death. Where the victim died three
weeks after the occurrence due to negligence on his
part and sepsis consequent to the bad handling of
the wound, this section was held not attracted.
 2) By doing an act with the intention of causing death
:- It is important to note that acts done extend to
illegal omission also.

 Intention is a question of fact which is to be gathered

from the acts of the parties (viz. nature of the weapon
used, the part of the body on which the blow was
given, the force and number of blows, etc.). The legal
maxim is that everyone must be presumed to intend
the normal consequences of his act. Intention does
not imply or assume the existence of some previous
design, it means an actual intention, the existing
intention of the moment. Causing serious injury on a
vital part of the body of the deceased with a
dangerous weapon must necessarily, lead to inference
that the accused intended to kill.
 3) With the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death – It means an
intention to cause a particular injury, which
injury is, or turns out to be, one likely to
cause death. It is not the death itself which is
intended nor the effect of injury. Thus, where
bodily injury sufficient to cause death is
actually caused, it is immaterial to go into the
question of whether the accused had
intention to cause death. For example, where
a person falsely arrested in a dacoity case,
and mercilessly beaten at the police station
which resulted in his death; beating for
exorcising evil spirit resulting in death.
 4) With the knowledge that he is likely by such
act to cause death – Knowledge in comparison to
intention is a strong word and imports a certainty
and not merely a probability. Intention is the
purpose or design with which an act is done. It is
the fore knowledge of the act coupled with the
desire of it. Knowledge is an awareness of the
consequences of the act. A person who
voluntarily inflicts injury such as to endanger life
must always, except in the most extraordinary
circumstances, be taken to know that he is likely
to cause death (e.g. when the accused fired his
gun in the air to scare away the opposite party
and in the act one stray pellet caused gunshot
wound to a person killing him).
 In Palani Goundan V Emperor , the accused struck his
wife on the head with a ploughshare, which made her
unconscious. Believing her to be dead, in order to lay the
foundation of a false defence of suicide by hanging, the
accused hanged her. The hanging actually caused her
death. The court observed that the intention of the
accused must be judged not in the light of actual
circumstances, but in the light of actual circumstances.
It follows that a man is not guilty of culpable homicide if
his intention was directed only to what he believes to be
a lifeless body. It was held that the accused cannot be
convicted of culpable homicide or murder, but for the
offences of grievous hurt and attempt to create false
evidence by hanging his wife. (However, the accused
could be guilty of murder if he had an intention to kill
the deceased when the deceased was alive).
 Death caused without ‘requisite intention or
knowledge’ is not culpable homicide [ see
illustration (c)]. In the absence of intention or
knowledge , the offence committed may be
hurt or grievous hurt. It may be noted that
ordinarily , without corpus delicti (i.e. dead
body of the victim), it is dangerous to convict.
However, if there is strong evidence the
accused can be convicted.
 Explanation I: “A person who causes bodily injury
to another who is labouring under a disease,
disorder or bodily infirmity, and thereby
accelerates the death of the other, shall be
deemed to have caused his death”.

 Explanation To Sec 299.

 Explanation 1 : “A person who causes bodily
injury to another who is labouring under a
disease, disorder or bodily infirmity, and thereby
accelerates the death of the other, shall be
deemed to have caused his death.”
 However, it is one of the element of culpable
homicide as contained in Sec 299 and the court
must be satisfied :
 1) that the death at the time when it occurs is not
caused solely by the disease; and
 2) that it is caused by the bodily injury to the
extent, that it is accelerated by such injury.
 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.
 Even the fact that victim dies because of wrong
treatment could not absolve the accused of his
guilt. If victim dies as a result of the original
injuries as well as the operation, the accused will
be guilty.

 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.
 Culpable homicide by causing death of
person other than person whose death was
intended-
 If a person by doing anything which he
intends or knows to be likely to cause the
death, commits culpable homicide by causing
the death of any person, whose death he
neither intends nor knows himself to be likely
to cause, the culpable homicide is said to be
committed.
 This section embodies what the English authors
describe as the doctrine of transfer of malice or the
trans-migration of motive. An accident makes no
difference- If A makes a thrust at B, and C throwing
himself between the two dies. A will be guilty. Where
wife gave poisoned food to her husband, eaten also
by four others. One person died. She was held guilty
of murder. Similarly, held in Public Prosecutor v
Mushunooru Suryanarayanmoorthy, where the
accused with the intention of killing A, gave him
some poisoned halwa. A ate a portion of it and threw
the rest away and this was picked up by accused’s
brother-in-law’s daughter (a girl of 8 years) who ate
it and also gave some to another child. The two child
died, but A eventually recovered.
 “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-
 (Secondly) —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—
 (Thirdly) —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—
 (Fourthly) —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
 (a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A
commits murder.
 (b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is
likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily
injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although
the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not
knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as
would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state
of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not
guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily
injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
 (c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause
the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in
consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have
intended to cause Z’s death.
 (d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons
and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have
had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
 1) In the scheme of the Penal Code, ‘culpable
homicide; is genus and ‘murder’ its species.
All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’ but not
vice versa. Speaking generally ‘culpable
homicide’ (manslaughter) is ‘culpable
homicide not amounting to murder’. Murder
is an aggravated form of culpable homicide
(Anda v State of Rajasthan).
 2) For the purpose of fixing punishment,
proportionate to the gravity of this generic
offence, the Code recognises three degrees of
culpable homicide.
 (a) Culpable Homicide of first degree- gravest
form of culpable homicide i.e. murder under Sec
302, punishable under Sec 302.
 (b) Culpable Homicide of second degree-
punishable under the 1st part of Sec 304.
 (c) Culpable homicide of third degree-
punishable under the 2nd part of Sec 304 (lowest
punishment).
 3) The safest way of approach to the
interpretation and application of these
provisions, as suggested by the Supreme
Court, is to keep in focus the key words used
in the various clauses of Secs 299 and 300
(State of A.P. v. R. Punnaya, AIR 1977 SC 45).
 There is a broad difference between the offences
of murder and culpable homicide. In the case of
murder, the offender has a positive intention to
cause the death of the victim. In the case of
culpable homicide the intention or knowledge is
not so positive or definite. The injury caused may
or may not cause death. Degree of probability of
death ensuing is high in case of murder. In cl. (3)
of Sec. 300 instead of the words ‘likely to cause
death’ , occurring in the corresponding clause (b)
of Sec. 299, the words ‘sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature’ have been used.
 Clause (b) of Sec 299 corresponds with cls. (2) and
(3) of Sec 300. The distinguishing feature of the
mens rea requisite under cl. (2) is the knowledge
possessed by the offender regarding the particular
victim being in such a peculiar condition or state
of health (e.g. enlarged spleen) that the
intentional harm caused is likely to be sufficient to
cause death of a person in normal health (see
illustration (b) to Sec 300). Clause (b) of Sec 299
does not postulate any such knowledge on the
part of the offender. Thus, if the assailant had no
knowledge about the disease of the victim, nor an
intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
the offence will not be murder, even if the injury
which caused the death, was intentionally given.
 Clause 1 : Act by which the death is caused is
done with the intention of causing death – A
question of intention is always a matter of fact.
Where the accused gave repeated knife blows to
the victim resulting in his death, it was held that
the intention was to kill.
 Clause 2: With the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause death- The expression “intention to cause
bodily injury as is likely to cause death” merely
means an intention to cause a particular injury
which injury is, or turns out to be, one likely to
cause death. It is not the death itself which is
intended nor the effect of the injury.
 A person inflicting a violent blow on the head of his
victim with a lethal weapon such as an iron stone
must be presumed to intend to cause such injury as
he knew was likely to cause death.
 Clause 3 : With the intention of causing bodily injury
to any person sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death- Clause “thirdly” consists of two
parts. Under the first part, it has to be shown that
there was intention on the part of the accused to
inflict the particular injury found on the body of the
deceased i.e. the injury caused was not unintentional
or accidental. The second part requires that the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. When both
these parts are satisfied, then the offence is under Sec
300 “Thirdly”. It does not matter that there was no
intention (or knowledge ) to cause death. (Virsa Singh
v State of Punjab), AIR 1958 SC 465)
 Even if none of the injuries by themselves was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause the death, but were cumulatively
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature, the case is covered by Sec
300 “Thirdly” (Brij Bhushan v State of U.P. AIR
1957).
 In Rajwant Singh v State of Kerela (AIR 1966),
while committing a burglary, death took place
as a direct result of the acts of the accused
(the nostrils of the victim were closed and he
died of breathlessness). It was held that
thirdly was attracted.
 In another case, there was an intention to
cause an injury to the victim. A single knife
blow was administered, which accidently fell
upon the left shoulder cutting a wound
through it and tearing up vital arteries which
came in the path of knife. The injury was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. Held that to come under thirdly
of Sec 300, the intention to cause the
requisite type of injury is absolutely
necessary.
 In Gurmail Singh v State of Punjab, when A
attempted to intervene to save ‘B’ and ‘C’
from further harm a barcha was given by
accused ‘D’ which landed on ‘A’. There was
nothing to indicate in the evidence that ‘D’
ever intended to cause any injury to ‘A’. It was
held that it could not be said that accused ‘D’
intended to cause that particular bodily injury
which in fact was found to have been caused.
It does not matter that injury was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Thirdly was not attracted.
 Clause 4 : 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..without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death – Unlike the
first three clauses of Sec 300, intention is not an
essential ingredient of this clause. The 4th clause
contemplates the doing of an imminently
dangerous act in general, and not the doing of
any bodily harm to any particular individual [see
illustration (d) to sec. 300]. This clause cannot be
applied until it is clear that clauses 1.2 and 3 of
the section each and all of them fail to suit the
circumstances.
 An act done with the knowledge of its
consequences is not prima facie murder. It
becomes murder only if it can be positively
affirmed that there was no excuse. When a risk is
incurred- even a risk of the gravest possible
character which must normally result in death-
the taking of that risk, is not murder, when there
is an excuse to do so (Emperor v Dhirajia, AIR
1940 All 486). In the above case, a woman
jumped into a well with a baby in her arms due to
panic or fright caused by her incoming husband
with whom she had quarreled.
 The court held that the act of jumping into a well
with a baby in one’s arm was so imminently
dangerous an act that however primitive a person
may be and however frightened he or she may
be, the knowledge of the likely consequences
must be supposed to have remained with him or
her. The court held it to be a case of culpable
homicide. However, she had an excuse and that
excuse was panic or fright. Thus, the clause
“4thly” was not attracted. She was held guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder
under Sec 304.
 However, in Gyarsibai v State (AIR 1953) ,
where the woman jumped into a river with
her three children as her life had become
unbearable on account of family discord, it
was held that there was no excuse for the
accused for incurring the risk of causing
death of her children. Thus, the case was held
to be covered under 4thly of Sec 300.
 “Whoever commits murder shall be punished
with death or imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine.” It is to be noted that
the death sentence is awarded only in ‘rarest
of rare’ cases e.g. assassinations of Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi.
 Part 1 of this Section provides punishment of
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10
years and fine. Part II provides imprisonment
for 10 years, or with fine, or both. If the
offence comes under Clause 2 of Sec 299 (i.e.
with intention), that Part I applies. If offences
comes under clause 3 of Sec 299 (only
knowledge), that Part II applies.
 If the offence falls within clauses 1, 2 and 3
of Sec 300 but is covered by any of the five
exceptions, it will be punishable under Part II