2025

BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA

2023
RAMANDEEP KAUR LEHMOD
 SECTION-A
Culpable Homicide (Clauses 100, 105)
Murder (Clauses 101, 103)
Causing Death by Negligence (Clause 106)
Dowry Death (Clause 80)
Organized Crime (Clauses 111-112)
Terrorist Act (Clause 113)
Hurt and Grievous Hurt (Clauses 114 -118, 124, 125)
Case Law: Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

CULPABLE HOMICIDE (CLAUSES 100, 105)

INTRODUCTION: - Homicide is killing of a human being by a human being. It may be either lawful or unlawful.
Death means the death of human being. It is not necessary that the person whose death has been caused must be the
very person whom the accused intended to kill. The offence of culpable homicide is complete as soon as any person
is killed by the accused whose mental state is of the kind where the accused causes death by doing an act either
with the intention of causing death or with intention of causing such bodily injury which was likely to cause death,
or with the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause death. An offence cannot amount to murder unless it
falls within the definition of culpable homicide. Murder includes a culpable homicide but a culpable homicide
mayor may not amount to murder.
[SECTION 100 BNS]
CULPABLE HOMICIDE: - Homicide has been derived from the Latin word 'homo' which means a man and
'caedere' which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide refers to the killing of a human being. All cases of homicide
are not culpable (punishable). Law distinguishes between lawful and unlawful homicide. Culpable Homicide has
been defined under Section 299 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It consists of both physical and mental elements.
Homicide is one of the most grievous actions a person may perform because it is considered the highest order of
physical harm inflicted on a human being.
Every unlawful homicide is not necessarily a 'murder Law distinguishes culpable homicide' and 'murder. From a
reading of S. 100 of BNS, it is apparent that what it requires is that there should be an intention to cause death or a
knowledge that the death is likely to be the result. It cannot be discerned that homicidal intention or knowledge
must be assumed by causing death itself. The fact that the death of a human being is caused, is not enough, to infer
one of the mental states mentioned above. Culpable homicide is of two kinds: one, culpable homicide amounting to
murder (as provided 100), and another, culpable homicide not amounting to murder. culpable homicide is genus
and murder is species. murders are culpable homicide, but not vice versa.
thus, ingredients of the offence of 'culpable homicide' are:
(1) Causes of death of a human being,
(2) Such death has been caused by doing an act
(a) with the intention of causing death; or
(b) to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or

1
(c) with the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death., commits the offence of culpable homicide.
1. WHOSOEVER CAUSE DEATH: - Death means death of human being. it does not include the death of an
unborn child, such as a child in the mother’s womb. But as per the explanation 3 of section 100 it may amount to
culpable homicide to cause death of living child if any part of the child has been brought forth.
2. BY DOING AN ACT: - Death may be caused in a number of ways such as poisoning, starving, drowning, or
communicating some shocking news etc. Acts here includes illegal omission also. An Omission is an illegal if it be
an offence, if it be a breach of some directions of law, or if it be such a wrong as would be a good ground for civil
action. Therefore death caused by illegal omission will also amount to culpable homicide.
3. INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH: - An act is said to be intentional when it is done with a desire that certain
consequences will happen by person’s physical act or omission. It is not always possible to know what particular
consequences a person desires. The degree of intention under culpable homicide not amounting to murder is
comparatively less and not sufficient so as to cause death like in murder. Intention is necessary to commit an illegal
act like murder or culpable homicide.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Satpal v. State (1998) observed that the intention to cause a death has to be
gathered and inferred from the actions of the accused and the surrounding circumstances such as motive of the
accused, utterances made, nature of attack, the time and place of attack, the nature and type of weapon used, the
nature of injuries caused and so on. These and other factors are to be taken into consideration to determine whether
the accused had requisite intention or not. In this case, there was no material or evidence to show that the act of
throwing the stone was such that it can be attributed that such act was likely to cause death of the victim. Hence, the
court did not gather the intention of the accused to place it either for culpable homicide or murder.
In order to satisfy the phrase act done with the 'intention to cause death' three conditions have to be satisfied:
1. Actus reus: By examining the act of the accused we need to ensure that the death of a human being is caused.
For example: if the accused fired a shot at the victim, however the shot did not hit him or only hit his arm resulting
in grievous hurt and not death, then this condition cannot be said to be fulfilled.
2. Mens rea: By examining the conduct of the accused we will have to decipher whether the accused had the 'guilty
intention' to cause death. For example: if the accused had stabbed the victim right in his heart, we can clearly state
that he had the intention to cause death.
3. Element of causality: The connection between the act of the accused and the death
must be established. In other words the death of the person must be caused by the act of the accused. This causality
is to be proved by the direct and circumstantial evidence in the trial.
For example: the accused mixed poison in the food of the victim, however the victim died due to a heart attack
before he even touched the food, there is no causality between the act of the accused and the death of the victim.
Thus, this condition is not fulfilled. However if the victim had eaten the food and died due to poisoning, the
condition would be satisfied.
4. WITH AN INTENTION OF CAUSING SUCH BODILY INJURY, TO CAUSE DEATH: - S. 100 of
Sanhita covers those situations where an offender may not patently intend to cause death, however, the intention
may be to cause such bodily injury which was ‘likely’ to cause death . the word ‘likely’ in the section conveys a

2
sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. This ingredient talks about such an intention of causing
bodily injury to a person which is likely to result in death of that person.
For instance, in a fight between A and B, A gave two blows with lathi on head of B which is likely to cause his
death and death will not be the result in all probability. Here, bodily injury was the result of his intention only, but
death was not the ultimate intention.
5. WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS LIKELY BY SUCH ACT TO CAUSE DEATH: - Intention and
knowledge are different things. The third phrase of Section 100 states that 'culpable homicide is an act done with
the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death'. This phrase deals with the element of knowledge. Here,
"knowledge" refers to an individual's awareness or understanding of facts and circumstances. The accused must
know that the act that he is committing is one that is likely to cause death.
In the landmark case of Basdev vs. State of Pepsu (1956) the honourable Supreme Court, distinguished between
intention and knowledge. In this case, the accused shot a 16 year old boy during a marriage feast in a highly
drunken condition. He claimed that he was so drunk that he did not have either the intention or the knowledge to
kill the boy. The court stated that, "knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases,
intention and knowledge merged into each other and mean the same thing, more or less and intention can be
presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin, but it is not
difficult to perceive that they are different things."

❖ EXPLANATION 1 :- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease
or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Two aspects are important for invoking explanation 1 of S. 100 of BNS:
First: The accused must know that the victim is suffering some disorder, bodily injury or disease.
Second: The accused caused the injury to the victim, with the knowledge that injury is likely to accelerate to
the death of the victim.
It is such case that the accused shall be deemed to have caused the death. The accused must know that the
condition of the deceased was such that his act was likely to cause death.
When the injury inflicted was not such as would cause his death but death resulted from rupture of the spleen
(which was considerably enlarged) and the accused has no knowledge of his ailment, the accused was held to
be guilty of grievous hurt.
❖ EXPLANATION 2 :- S. 100 of BNS provides that where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who
causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, even if by resorting to proper remedies and
skilful treatment the death could have been prevented. In other words, when there is sufficient evidence to
establish bodily injury led to the death of the deceased, the accused cannot take a defence that had the deceased
been given timely treatment, he would have survived.
❖ 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.
[SECTION 105 BNS]

3
S. 105 of BNS provides punishment for two separate degrees of culpable homicide, depending upon the
circumstances:

(1) If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, then the punishment prescribed is life imprisonment, or imprisonment of
minimum five years but which may extend to ten years, and a fine. The minimum prescribed punishment is a
departure from the now-repealed IPC, 1860.

(2) If the act causing death has been done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it would be covered in Part II of
S. 105 of BNS. The sentence prescribed in Part II of S. 105 is imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine.

CASE LAWS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Palani Goudan v. Emperor
In this case, a husband struck a violent blow on his wife’s head with a ploughshare, and she became unconscious.
Believing she had died, he hanged her to conceal his crime. However, she died due to hanging, not the blow. The
court held that the accused could not be convicted of murder or culpable Homicide in IPC, but he was punished for
assaulting his wife and attempting to create false evidence by hanging her. The court found no intention of causing
death while giving the blow, and her death was due to hanging.
Re Thavamani case
The facts of this case can be divided into two stages. In the first stage, the accused had the intention to cause death
and hit the victim, believing she had died. However, she was merely unconscious. In the second stage, they threw
her into a well to conceal evidence, and she died there. The court held the accused liable for murder, stating that the
second stage was a continuation of the first stage. From the beginning, the accused had an intention to cause the
victim’s death, making them responsible for the murder.