(..13..)
Offences Affecting the Human Body
CULPABLE HOMICIDE
(Chapter VI Ss. 100, 102, 105 and 110)
QUESTION BANK
Q1. When āculpable homicideā is not amounting to āmurderā?
Q2. What is murder when does āculpable homicideā not amount to murder?
Q3. Define and distinguish between āCulpable Homicideā and Murder, referring to decided cases.
Q4. What is Murder? Distinguish it from culpable homicide.
Q5. Explain and illustrate āDeath caused by rash and negligent actā.
SHORT NOTES
1. Culpable Homicide
SYNOPSIS
I. Introduction-
II. Definition and Core Concept:
III. Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Section 105):-
IV] Explanations-
Culpable Homicide by Causing the Death of a Person other than the Person Whose
Death is Intended (S.102): -
V. Difference between Culpable homicide and murder-
I. Introduction-
The term āHomicideā is derived from the Latin terms 'homo' (man) and 'caedere' (to kill), broadly refers to the killing of a human being by another person. However, not every act of homicide is considered a crime; it is bifurcated into lawful and unlawful categories. Lawful homicides are excusable or justifiable, often covered by general exceptions, and include acts like killing in self-defence, court-ordered executions (death penalty), or actions by a police officer in lawful duty. In contrast, unlawful homicides are those not permitted by law and are punishable crimes, which primarily include culpable homicide and murder.
Under the BNS, offences affecting the human body, including culpable homicide and murder, are detailed in Chapter VI of the BNS 2023. Culpable homicide is defined under Section 100 of BNS 2023 (corresponding to the repealed Section 299 of IPC 1860). Sections 101, 105, and 110 deals with the offence of culpable homicide. There are three types of unlawful homicides.
i) S.100 defines āāCulpable Homicide Simplicitorā;
ii) S.102 defines āmurderā, whereas,
iii) exceptions to S. 102 clauses (1) to (4) provide for the circumstances
when āCulpable Homicideā does not amount to murderā.
In both āculpable homicideā and āmurder,ā causing death is common, and there is the necessity of criminal intention or knowledge in both. The BNS, carries on the same definition of culpable homicide under s. 299 of I.P.C. There is a renumbering and reframing of the same section in both I.P.C and BNS.
II. Definition and Core Concept:
Culpable homicide is defined in Section 100 of the BNS. Culpable homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide. S. 100 provides that-Whoever causes death by doing an act -
i) With the intention of causing death; or
ii) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.
iii) With the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death,
Commits culpable homicide (S. 100).
This is a foundational concept from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that has been carried over into the BNS. The key elements are the mental state of the offender (intent or knowledge) and the resulting death of a person.
Illustrations
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 does not know that B is 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 cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Illustrations a) and b) to S. 100 give examples of āCulpable Homicideā accompanied by the first or third species. Illustrations c) show that unless one or other of the three species is present, there can be no culpable homicide.
āIntention of causing deathā in clause (i) of S. 100 above is also prima facie murder within the express words of S. 101. Rest of the clauses, i.e. (ii) and (iii) of S. 100, do not provide for strong intention to cause death but the likeliness of causing it. This element of mens rea makes the difference between āmurderā and āāCulpable Homicideāā.
III. Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Section 105):
Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, addresses the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The law makes a clear distinction based on the offender's mental state. If the death is caused with the (i) intention of causing death or (ii) a bodily injury likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and a fine. However, if the act is committed with the (iii) knowledge that it's likely to cause death, but without the intention to do so, the punishment can be imprisonment for a term of up to ten years and a fine. In short, if the offence falls under the first two categories of the definition, the punishment is severe than for offences falling under the third category.
III. Illustrations to the definition-
Illustrations to Section 100 illustrate the concept of culpable homicide further.
Illustration
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 does not know that B is 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 cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Illustrations a) and b) to S. 100 give examples of āCulpable Homicideā accompanied by the first or third species. Illustrations c) show that unless one or other of the three species is present, there can be no culpable homicide.
āIntention of causing deathā in clause (i) of S. 100 above is also prima facie murder within the express words of S. 101. Rest of the clauses, i.e. (ii) and (iii) of S. 100, do not provide for strong intention to cause death but the likeliness of causing it. This element of mens rea makes the difference between āmurderā and āāCulpable Homicideāā.
IV] Explanations-
There are the following three explanations for this Section. These explanations are added to the section to explain the concept of culpable homicide more correctly-
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 another, is deemed to have caused his death.
Thus, if A, while suffering from an incurable disease, is violently assaulted by B, even after knowing of Aās incurable disease, and A dies in a few days, B has killed A. Therefore, B is guilty of culpable homicide.
2) Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury is deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment, the death might have been prevented.
Thus, if A deliberately inflicts an injury on B, likely to result in death, B refuses to allow a surgeon to perform an operation on the wound. B dies of the infection in that wound. A has killed B and, therefore, is guilty under this section.
But the connection between the injury and the death must not be too remote.
3) The causing of the death of a child in the motherās womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of the living child if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
As defined by S. 10, āmanā denotes a male human being of any age, and āwomanā denotes a female human being of any age. Therefore, causing the death of a child just born is similarly serious as causing the death of a fully grown human being. As soon as any part of a child has been brought forth from the motherās womb, the child is considered a living human being.
In Emperor V/s Falani
Facts: - the accused struck his wife a blow on the head with a plough sphere, which, though not shown to be a blow likely to cause death, made her unconscious. He believed her to be dead. The accused hanged her on a beam by a rope to make a false defence of suicide by hanging, thereby causing her death by strangulation.
Held: - that the accused was not guilty of culpable homicide but convicted him of grievous hurt.
In Vasantās case
Facts: - The accused administered a single knife blow right on the chest of the deceased with such great force that the ribs were cut, and both the heart and lung were punctured.
Held: The accused was held liable for culpable homicide, not amounting to murder since he had inflicted a single knife blow.
Culpable Homicideā by Causing Death of a Person other than Person Whose
Death is Intended (S.102):-
S.100 embodies a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence based on the doctrine of transferred malice. It provides that āif a person by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits the culpable homicide by causing the death of any other person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to causeā, is punishable similarly as the culpable homicide of intended person.
Thus, if A intends to kill B but kills C, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill C is, by law, attributed to him and be
held guilty of culpable homicide.
However, the rule laid down under S. 102 cannot well be stated as an explanation to either S. 100 or S.101, but it relates to both, i.e., for murder and culpable homicide.
In Gyanendra Kumarās Case
Facts: - The accused was deliberately trying to shoot at a fleeing man who had criticised his father in a school committee meeting, but unfortunately, his own maternal uncle came in between him and the intended victim and thus got killed.
Held: - That the act of the accused was nothing but murder under S. 302, read with
S. 301 of IPC.
An attempt to commit culpable homicide is also punished under S. 110 of BNS. The punishment under this section varies based on the outcome of the act: (i) If no harm is caused: The person can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of up to three years, a fine, or both. (ii) If hurt is caused: The punishment is more severe, with imprisonment for a term of up to seven years, a fine, or both.
V. Difference between Culpable homicide and murder-
It's important to remember the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, which also remains consistent across both codes.
a. Culpable Homicide is the broader category. All murders are culpable homicides, but not all culpable homicides are murders.
b. Murder is a species of culpable homicide that has a higher degree of mens rea (guilty mind), specifically falling under the more stringent conditions listed in IPC Section 300 (now BNS Section 101). These conditions include a definite intent to cause death or an act so imminently dangerous that it is highly probable to cause death. The BNS and IPC both have provisions for a crime to be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder, such as when an act is committed under grave and sudden provocation or in the exercise of private defence.
*****