What Is The Difference Between Culpable Homicide And Murder?
Author – Riya Garg
Introduction
Culpable homicide and murder though seemingly similar, are two different concepts applied in different situations. Thus, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 specifies different punishments for the two. While the punishment for murder is death or imprisonment for life and fine, the maximum punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is imprisonment for life or ten years depending on whether such death was intended or not. Since the two have huge different in culpabilities and similar ingredients making it difficult to tell them apart, their misuse is highly probable. This makes it imperative to learn about the two offences and the differences between them in detail.
Homicide And Its Types
Homicide means killing of one human being by another (Latin: homo=man; caedere =to cut/ kill). Homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes legally excusable (such as death in cases of self-defense, necessity, mistake of fact etc.) or justifiable acts (death penalty, bona fide execution of the law). Unlawful homicides, on the other hand, are not legally excusable and justifiable. Unlike lawful homicide, the culprit in such cases is punishable by the law. Homicide is unlawful when the death is caused by an intentional act, or mala fide intention, to be precise. This includes death by rash and negligent act (Sec 304-A), suicide (Sec 309), murder (Sec. 300) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec. 299).
The Distinction
What separates lawful homicides from the unlawful ones is the intention, or, to be more precise, the element of mens rea. In most cases of lawful homicides, intention is not present; even if intention is present; such intention is not to hurt someone but to protect oneself, or to pursue greater good. Without the presence of such criminal intent, a homicide cannot be said to be criminal or culpable. In these cases, the person will not tend to be tried by the law and can also be exempted from the charges.
What Is Culpable Homicide?
Dictionary meaning of the word ‘Culpable’ is blameworthy, guilty or criminal. Thus, ‘culpable homicide’ means death through human agency that is punishable by law. Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code defines Culpable Homicide as-
“Whosoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as it is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”
Essential Elements
Every crime is composed of two elements: actus reus and mens rea. While mens rea corresponds to the guilty intention, actus reus means guilty act. From the above definition, we can infer that both physical and mental elements are required to constitute an offence under Sec. 299 of the IPC. The essential ingredients of culpable homicide are:
- Whoever causes death – The first essential of the crime of culpable homicide is that the death must be “caused”; a mere accident cannot amount to culpable homicide. However, it is not necessary that the person whose death has been caused is the very person whose death was intended. Even if the intention was to kill someone else, as long as the act which caused the death was done in order to kill, such an action will be considered as Culpable Homicide. Though it should be clear that causing death here does not include death of an unborn child i.e., the child which is still in the mother’s womb. However, if any part of the child has been brought forth, death of such a child amounts to culpable homicide.
- By doing an act –Also, such a guilty act includes both positive acts such as poisoning, stabbing, etc. or negative acts as those of illegal omissions. An omission is illegal if a person fails to do something which he was legally bound to do and results in a breach of law. For e.g., A nurse, who has the duty to provide required medical assistance to a critically ill patient, voluntarily omits to do so, and the patient dies as a result, she is liable for culpable homicide. But in a case where A didn’t feed a beggar and hence the beggar dies in consequence, A has committed no offence because he was not legally bound to feed the beggar and had no relation whatsoever with the beggar except that of humanity.
Also here the word ‘act’ can include the use of words for causing a human being’s death. If A intended and had knowledge that B has a serious heart illness or is in a state that he cannot handle any shocking news, still gives certain exciting or agitating news to B by which he dies, A is liable for culpable homicide.
- Intention/knowledge: The latter part of the definition incorporates the mental element of the offence of culpable homicide i.e. intention or knowledge.
(a) Intention to cause death – Intention means the expectation of the consequence in question. It is inferred from the acts of the accused and the circumstance of the case. Intention cannot be concluded on the mere basis of consequences and unless the occurrence of death was the most probable result of the act of the offender, intention to kill cannot be confirmed. Thus, stabbing a person repeatedly in vital organs means there was intention to kill whereas a blow with a strong weapon on the shoulder, which, in ordinary circumstances, would not have resulted in death, cannot mean that there was intention to kill, even if it resulted in death.
(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – Even if the intention of the offender is not to cause death of the person but such bodily injury which is likely to cause death, it is sufficient to constitute culpable homicide. If A purposely caused serious injury to B on vital parts like head and chest and as a result, B dies then A will be held liable for culpable homicide. In such situations, the time between the infliction of injuries and death, has to be kept in mind.
(c) With the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death –Knowledge is different from intention to the extent that where a person may not have the intention to commit an act which kills i.e., he may not want death to happen, he knows that the act which he commits will take someone’s life or is likely to take someone’s life. In a case where a person in a huff took his father’s revolver and fired indiscriminately towards his neighbor’s house and a member of their family got shot and died while trying to close the door, he was held guilty for culpable homicide since he can be said to have knowledge that use of revolver is likely to cause death, even though he did not intend for somebody to die.
Culpable Homicide has been further divided into two types: Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder, simply called ‘Murder’ and Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines both these offences.
Culpable Homicide Amounting To Murder
Section 300 of the Code defines murder as–
“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 an act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”
The above definition clearly states that “culpable homicide is murder if” which means that murder is a sub-category of culpable homicide and only in certain cases culpable homicide amounts to murder. In other words, “culpable homicide” is the genus and “murder” is the species.. The four situations where culpable homicide is to be considered as murder are:-
- When the act is done with the intention of causing death: As in case of culpable homicide, if the act is done with the intention of causing death, it will amount to murder.
- With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death: In case of offence falling under clause (2) of Section 300, there is first, the intention to cause bodily harm and next, there is the ‘subjective knowledge’ that death will be the likely consequence of the intended injury. The second situation covers instances where the offender has special knowledge about the victim’s condition and causes harm in such a manner which causes death of the person.
- With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death: Where a man intentionally inflicts bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death, then such a person will be liable for murder. Merely having such intention is sufficient. Whether or not the offender knew that infliction of such bodily injury would lead to death is immaterial. Objective truth matters. Thus, in a case where there were as many as 24 injuries on the deceased, most of them being on his head, the neck, or the shoulders or on the forearms and of them 21 were incised using short weapons, it was held that the intention of causing bodily injuries was established, bringing it under the cover of Section 300.
- Person committing the act known that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death: This applies to acts so imminently dangerous that must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, done without the intention to cause specific bodily injury to any specific person. E.g., furious driving or firing at a target near the public road. However, the act should be done without any lawful excuse.
WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER
Apart from defining murder, Sec. 300 of the IPC also specifies cases in which a culpable homicide that falls into into one of the clauses of Section 300 will not be considered as murder. The five exceptions so defined are:-
- Acts caused under grave and sudden provocation: When a person losses self-control on account of certain situation and causes the death of some person. The provocation must be grave, it must be sudden that is there must be no scope for pre meditation and thirdly, it must not be self-invited so as to use it as an excuse to deprive a person of his/ her life.
- Exceeding right to private defence exercised in good faith: In exercising private defense either with respect to property or person, if person accidently exceeds his or her right in good faith or in wrong judgment and the act causes the death of a person, the act is culpable homicide and not murder.
- Exceeding the ambit of discharging public duties – When an officer or public servant exceeds his or her mandate of duties or authority given to him or an officer or public servant assisting him exceeds the same, it is considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This exception shall not apply where the act of a public servant is illegal and unauthorised by law or if he glaringly exceeds the powers entrusted to him by law.
- Death caused in sudden fight or heat of passion or quarrel- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. It is immaterial as to which party offered the provocation or committed the first assault.
- Death caused of person consenting to it: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Difference Between Culpable Homicide And Murder
The relationship between culpable homicide and murder is usually expressed by the phrase that “all murders are culpable homicides, but all culpable homicides are not murder”. Due to the overlapping tendency of culpable homicide and murder, the two closely resemble each other and it is difficult to distinguish one from the other as both involve causing of death and intention. However, the distinction, though very fine, exists as is mentioned below:
Degree of intention or knowledge
One of the major distinctions between culpable homicide and murder is that of the degree of intention or knowledge, there being the greater intention or knowledge of the fatal consequences in the one case than the other. In culpable homicide, the use of the word ‘likely’ repeatedly implies an element of ambiguity with respect to the offender’s intention; that his act is likely to lead to death, but such death might also not happen. In contrast, in the case of murder, the intention to kill has to be very clear (to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case) and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any uncertainty as to how the death of the person came about, a person cannot be held liable for murder.
Where the degree of such intention or knowledge stands at zero, the act causing such death shall amount to neither murder nor culpable homicide not amounting to murder and shall be deemed to be simple hurt or grievous hurt.
Degree of probability of death
This distinction corresponds to Clause 2 of Sec. 299 and clause ‘thirdly’ of Sec. 300.
IPC has divided culpable homicide into three degrees. First is the gravest form which is Murder it is defined under section 300 of IPC, the second is the culpable homicide of the second degree which is punishable under Section 304 part 1 of IPC and Third is the lowest degree of culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 304 part 2 of IPC.
It is the degree of probability of death, which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or lowest degree. The word ‘likely’ in second clause of Sec. 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words ‘bodily injury……sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death’, in clause ‘thirdly’ of Sec. 300, mean that death will be the most probable result of injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide, between the grave and simple forms has been well set out in the well-known leading case of Reg. v. Govinda. The accused knocked his wife down, put one knee on her chest, struck her two three violent blows on the face with a closed fist causing extravasation of blood resulting in her death. The issue was whether the offence disclosed by the facts was murder or culpable homicide. Justice Meville stated that “Whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is likely result, it is culpable homicide; if it is the most probable result, it is murder.” Accordingly, the accused was convicted of culpable homicide (and not murder).
CONCLUSION
Murder and Culpable Homicides though overlapping, are different concepts. Murder is a specialized or conditional form of culpable homicide and corresponds to higher degree of intention, heinousness and probability of death. Thus, the liability incurred in the case of murder is considerably higher than than in culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Concerns over the fine distinction leading to injustice have been expressed by the Supreme Court.
“Many petty or insignificant matters – plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death.”
Thus, the question of intention must be considered with care and caution in discerning whether an act is the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II.
Read Other Related Articles-
