case study on section 299 of ipc

Culpable Homicide: Section 299 of IPC, 1860 | Detailed Explanation

This is an exhaustive article on section 299 of the indian penal code with the help of various landmark case laws. introduction: meaning and definition of section 299 of ipc section 299 of the indian penal code, 1860 is about culpable homicide. before we move towards understanding culpable homicide, first let’s discuss homicide. the word homicide is made… read more ».

This is an exhaustive article on section 299 of the Indian Penal Code with the help of various landmark case laws.

Introduction: Meaning and Definition of Section 299 of IPC

Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 is about culpable homicide . Before we move towards understanding culpable homicide, first let’s discuss homicide.

The word homicide is made up of two words i.e. ‘homi’ and ‘cide’ . ‘ homi ’ means man or human being and ‘ cide ’ means cutting or killing. So, homicide is the killing of a human being. Now, the killing of a human being by another human being i.e. Homicide is not always punishable under IPC,1860, if it comes within the sections 76-106 chapter IV of IPC i.e. General exceptions.

Types of homicide

Homicide can be divided into two parts. First is justified or lawful homicide which comes under general exception (chapter iv) and second is unjustified/unlawful homicide which comes under sections 299,300, 304a & 304b, etc .

Here we are concerned with unlawful or criminal homicides (i.e., homicides that are neither excused nor justified). All homicides are not culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are homicides . So we can here infer that homicide is the genus and culpable homicide is its species. That is the reason why ‘homicide’ a Latin term is called the generic term.

Meaning of culpable homicide

In a homicide, there is a relationship between cause and death but the guilty mind is absent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea it means, the act does not make a man guilty, unless his intention was so. When a homicide is committed with a guilty mind, that homicide would be culpable homicide or murder. The difference between culpable homicide and murder lies on the point of the degree of intention and knowledge .

When homicide is done with guilty intention or knowledge and that intention or knowledge is of the highest degree, then it is murder.

Here are two conditions that must be fulfilled to commit the offense of culpable homicide and murder as follows:-

• There must be a cause-effect relationship;
• Guilty mind (actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea).

Section 299 culpable homicide – “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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”.

Essentials of section 299

The essentials ingredients of section 299 culpable homicide are :

• There must be the death of a person ;
• The death should have been caused by the act of another person and

The act causing death should have been done with :

• The intention of causing death; or
• The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
• With the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.

Illustrations of section 299

• 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 believes the ground to be firm, treads on it fall in, and is killed. A has committed the offense of culpable homicide.

Simplification of illustration a –

A has committed offence of culpable homicide because all the essential ingredients of section 299 are being fulfilled here as follows :

• There must be the death of a person, here z’s death is caused;
• The death should have been caused by the act of another person, here z’s death is caused by the act done by a (cause-effect relationship). The cause of z’s death is, the effect of an act done by a;
• Guilty mind, here a laid sticks & turf over a

pit, with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused.

Note: intention or knowledge to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause the death of a particular person is not required to commit the offense of culpable homicide. Like in illustration (a) of section 299, a did not have the intention or knowledge to cause the death of z particularly.

• 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 offense, but a has committed the offense of culpable homicide.

Simplification of illustration b –

• There must be the death of a person, here the death of z is caused ;
• The death should have been caused by the act of another person, here the death of z is caused by b (who did not have intention or knowledge to kill z)
• Here a knows z to be behind a bush. A also has intention or knowledge that such firing by b is also likely to cause z’s death. That’s why a has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
• 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.

Simplification of illustration c –

• There must be the death of a person, here b has died ;
• The death should have been caused by the act of another person, here the death of b is caused by the act of a;
• But here a did not have the intention to cause the death of b, also a did not have any intention or knowledge to cause such bodily injury that is likely to cause the death of b.

Here the guilty mind of a is absent, so a is not liable for committing the offense of culpable homicide.

Explanations of section 299

Three explanations have been defined under section 299. These explanations further clarify what will be treated as culpable homicide and what not.

Explanation 1- A person who causes bodily injury to another person 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.

Example : N was suffering from a disease, M could not see N in such a situation so he accelerates the death of N. And N died in consequence of an act done by M.

Here M cannot escape criminal liability of culpable homicide by stating that if N did not suffer from the said disease or disorder, he would not have died.

Note: N’s death is caused by the act of M, not by his disease. Also, M has no intention to cause the death of N, but he is presumed to have the intention ( desire & foresight of consequences ) or knowledge ( foresight of consequences ) that he is likely by such act to cause the death of N.

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.

Example : Death of C was caused by the bodily injury inflicted by D. D says that by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death of C might have been prevented. But this cannot be a ground for negating the guilt or culpability of D who inflicted injury in the first place. D has committed the offense of culpable homicide.

Explanation 3 – The causing of the death of a child in the mothers’ womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Example : Child Y was killed in her mother’s womb, this is not a homicide. But when any portion of Y, comes out of the mother’s womb, even Y is not fully born, and death is caused to Y, then it would amount to culpable homicide.

Landmark cases on Culpable homicide

The empress v. ganesh dooley & gopi dooley [1].

Facts : a snake charmer exhibited a venomous snake in public. He knew that the fangs of the snake had not been extracted. Without the intention of causing harm to anyone, he wants to show his own skill. He placed the snake on the head of one of the spectators. The spectator in trying to push off the snake was bitten and died in consequence.

Decision : the snake charmer was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Reason : sometimes even gross negligence may amount to knowledge.

Palani Goudan v. Emperor [2]

Facts : husband struck a violent blow on the head of his wife with a ploughshare. His wife became unconscious. He thought his wife died but she was merely unconscious. So for concealment of his own crime and the true cause of her death, he hanged her. She died due to hanging.

Decision : the madras high court held that the accused cannot be convicted either of murder or culpable homicide, but definitely, be punished for committing an assault on his wife and also for attempting to create false evidence by hanging her.

Reason : the court observed that the accused had no intention of causing death while giving a blow to his wife’s head. Hence, no mens rea was being found on the part of the accused.

It was not shown that the blow was likely to cause death and the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxiation by hanging.

In Re Thavamani case [3]

Facts : facts of this case are divided into two stages –

Stage i – in the first stage accused has the intention to cause death. Accused hit the Meenakshi Achi when she was in her flower garden. They thought that she had died. But in reality, she was merely unconscious.

Stage ii – after believing her death they threw her into well to conceal evidence. She died in well.

Comment : the second stage was the continuation of the first stage.

Decision : The Madras High court held that the accused was liable for murder.

Reason : from the very beginning accused had an intention to cause the death of Meenakshi Achi. The accused hit the deceased with the intention of causing death. Even if the intention at stage ii of the transaction had been merely to dispose of a dead body, the two stages of the same transaction are so closely connected in time and purpose that they must be considered as parts of the same transaction.

Note: in the Palani Goudan case, the accused did not have the intention to cause the death of the deceased, but from the very beginning accused had an intention to cause bodily injury, and also it was not shown or proved by the public prosecutor that such bodily injury was likely to cause death.

But, in In Re Thavamani case, the accused from the very beginning has an intention to cause the death of the accused.

Few other cases & their ratios

Moti singh & anr. v. state of up [4].

• Primary cause and death should not be too remote.
• Death of deceased must be caused by the act of

Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu [5]

• Three degrees of mens rea are present as far as the offence of culpable homicide is concerned :
• An intention to cause death;
• An intention to cause dangerous bodily injury is likely to cause death and
• The knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab [6]

• The accused was about 15-20 feet away from the victim when the victim jumped into well.
• There was no cause-effect relationship.
• It means the death of the victim must be caused by an act of the accused.

Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana [7]

Whether there is an intention or not is a question of fact.

Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh [8]

• A guilty intention or knowledge is essential to the offence under section 299.
• “intent” and “knowledge” in section 299 postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude which is of different degrees.

Mohd Arif v. State of Uttaranchal [9]

• No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determining the existence of intention.

Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh [10]

• “Intention” compared with “Knowledge”, requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.

Culpable homicide and murder both are offences affecting life under IPC,1860. But the difference between the two lies at the point of gravity or degree of intention to cause death or intention or knowledge to cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause death. Also, all murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are not murder.

[1] The Empress v. Ganesh Dooley & Gopi Dooley (1880) ILR 5 Cal 351

[2] Palani Goudan v. Emperor [1919 ILR 547 (Mad)]

[3] (1943) 2 MLJ 13

[4] Moti Singh & Anr. v. Sate of UP 1964 AIR 900, 1964 SCR(1) 688

[5] Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1519: (1976)Cri LJ 1186(SC).

[6] Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1876

[7] Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana 15 SCC 753: 2008(6) SCALE 433.

[ 8 ] Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh: AIR 2009 SC 2869.

[9] Mohd Arif v. the State of Uttaranchal 11 SCC 497 : (2009) Cr LJ 2789 (SC).

[10] Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 SCC 317: AIR 2016 SC 447.

• Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
• Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination

Nikita Dalal and Mannu Malik

Related news.

Indian Penal Code

Home / indian penal code, criminal law, culpable homicide,  26-mar-2024.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Introduction

Culpable Homicide is one of the gravest offences against the human body. The word culpable comes from the Latin word " culpe” , which signifies punishment. The Latin word “ Homo + Cida ”, which means human being + killing, is where the term homicide originates. It refers to the killing of a human being by a human being. Homicide may be lawful or unlawful. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with the provision of Culpable Homicide.

Section 299 of IPC

• This section deals with Culpable homicide.
• It states that whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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.
• 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.
• 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 skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
• 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.

Illustrations

• 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.
• 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.

Essential Ingredients of Culpable Homicide

• A person must be dead.
• The death must have been caused by the act of another person.
• The intention of causing death; or
• The intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death; or
• With the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.

Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

• Provocation is not sought or voluntarily pro­voked by the offender.
• Provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exer­cise of the powers of such public servant.
• Provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
• Culpable homicide is not murder, if it is the exercise of the right to private defence.
• Culpable homicide is not murder, if it is done by the public servant acting in good faith.
• Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
• Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Culpable Homicide by Mistake or Accident

• Section 301 of IPC deals with the culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.
• It states that if a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause 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 committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to he likely to cause.

Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

• Section 304 of IPC deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 304 of IPC can be separated into two parts: Section 304 (Part I) and Section 304 (Part II).
• Section 304(Part I) states that, whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years , and shall also be liable to fine, 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.
• Section 304 (Part II) states that, whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is 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.
• In the case of Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997), the Orissa High Court held that Section 299 of IPC is the genus and Section 300 of IPC is the species. Hence, there are no independent sections regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• In the case of Kusa Majhi v. State of Orissa (1985) , the Court considered culpable homicide, not amounting to murder as it has caused bodily injury that was likely to cause death. The court also noted that it was out of a sudden moment and not pre-planned.

• UK & Ireland

How is this helpful for me?

• Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
• Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
• Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
• The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

SUGGESTIONS

• Visual Try our Visuals feature which gives you an instant snapshot of the most relevant and landmark case laws.">

Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

• Judgments 5886

...has been drawn with regard to a case falling under Sections 304-A and 304 Part II IPC . In the said judgment, proper and correct effect of Sections 299 and 300 IPC has also been discussed. This judgment...offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC or murder under Section 300 IPC . If a person wilfully drives a motor...(1976) 1 SCC 889)“10. Section 304-A by its own definition totally excludes the ingredients of Section 299 or Section 300 IPC . Doing...

...import of Sections 299 and 300 IPC , reproduced hereinbelow. Section 299 IPC reads as follows:“ 299 . Culpable homicide.—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of... 299 and Section 300 IPC has been eloquently and beautifully carved out by Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat in a recent judgment, after considering all the previous judgments of this Court. We may...“ IPC ”) as held by the trial court and upheld by the High Court or whether the conviction should be converted to that under Section 304 IPC , has once again cropped up for consideration before us, in...

...his was likely to cause death. In order to find out that an offence is “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”—since Section 304 does not define this expression—Sections 299 and 300 IPC have to be...seen.29. Section 299 IPC reads as under:“ 299 . Culpable homicide.—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with...Sections 304 Part II, 338 and 337 of the Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ).2. The prosecution case against the appellant is this: the repair and construction work of Carter Road...

...all probability their acts would result in such injuries as are likely to cause the death. The offence . . . is therefore culpable homicide falling under … Section 299 of the IPC punishable under...seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two...offences.(See table on facing page)14. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature...

...such a case, would, therefore, be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder as per the third clause of Section 299 IPC , punishable under Sections 304 Part II/149 IPC . We...149 IPC and Sections 148 and 147 IPC . Appellant Uma Shankar was also tried for an offence under Section 436 IPC . Appellants Raja Ram, Anandi, Ram Janak, Harivansh, Halke and Uma Shankar along with...Ram Narayan were also tried for offences under Sections 325/149 IPC for causing grievous hurt to Ram Lakhan, while Anandi appellant was charged for an offence under Section 323 IPC for causing simple...

.... 302 IPC . HELD : The case fell within the third part of s. 299 IPC and was punishable under the second part of s. 304 IPC as culpable homicide not amounting to...) RF 1973 SC 460 (17,20) R 1981 SC1441 (3) R 1981 SC1552 (11,12) ACT: Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) ss. 299 and 300.... 299 is in three parts. The first part takes in the doing of an act with the intention of causing death. The appellant did not intend causing death and the first part of s. 299 did not apply. The second...

...the materials placed before the court raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge whether the accused had requisite intention as laid down in Section 299 IPC , he has to acquit the accused because...benefit of absence of mens rea under Section 299 IPC . Mr Natarajan has submitted that even if the materials on record may not justify inference of such complete incapacity of the accused to understand...Criminal Murder Reference No. 3 of 1994 and dismissed D.B Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 602 of 1994 preferred by the appellant before the High Court against the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence...

...(1976) 4 SCC 382. It has been observed that the safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of Sections 299 and 300 IPC is to keep in focus the key word...clauses of the said sections. Minutely comparing each of the clauses of Sections 299 and 300 IPC and drawing support from the decisions of this Court in... 299 IPC . Thus, in our opinion, the offence committed by the appellant was only “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to bring down the offence from...

...provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 IPC . The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction...is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.10. Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC corresponds...of clause (2) is borne out by Illustration (b) appended to Section 300 IPC .11*. Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the...

...homicide, dealt with between Sections 299 and 304 IPC , and (2) Non-culpable homicide, dealt with by Section 304-A IPC . For the present discussion we are not concerned with Section 304-B IPC ...homicide”. But, there could be a rash or negligent act that results in the death of a person and yet amount to a culpable homicide falling within the scope and ambit of Section 299 IPC . This distinction...case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (within Section 299 read with Section 304 IPC ) was made out and a conviction handed down accordingly.14. Therefore, it...

...regarding the cause of death, one of the essential elements of the offence of culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC , it cannot be said that the bodily injury alleged to have been caused by A-1....”23. Both the accused are convicted for the offence prescribed under Section 299 IPC while A-1 was found guilty of the offence simpliciter, A-2 was found vicariously guilty...the death of Gurnam Singh by their conduct accompanied by the requisite mens rea and such conduct constitutes the offence prescribed under Section 299 IPC .24. The question...

...the clauses of Section 304 IPC or under Section 302 IPC , attention must be focused on the language used by the legislature in Sections 299 and 300 IPC , as otherwise irrelevant considerations come...into play which affect the judgment resulting in failure of justice.13. First it has to be seen whether the offence falls within the ambit of Section 299 IPC . If the offence...falls under Section 299 IPC , a further enquiry has to be made whether it falls in any of the clauses, namely, clauses “Firstly” to “Fourthly” of Section 300 IPC . If the offence falls in any one of...

...to whether it does or does not occur.”(Emphasis supplied)31. The phraseology of Sections 299 and 300 respectively of the IPC leaves no...Section 304 Part I or we should further alter it to Section 304 Part II of the IPC ?SECTIONS 299 AND 300 OF THE IPC : -34. Sections 299 and 300...of the IPC deal with the definition of ‘culpable homicide’ and ‘murder’, respectively. In terms of Section 299 , ‘culpable homicide’ is described as an act of causing death (i) with the intention of...

...framed against the petitioner and not the charge under Section 304 IPC . He has further submitted that the case of the petitioner is not covered within the definition of Section 299 IPC . As per the...prosecution case the death of the workers had occurred on account of the negligence of the petitioners. Section 299 IPC reads as under:- 299 . Culpable...present case was registered with regard to offence under Section 304-A IPC but challan was presented against the petitioner under Section 304, 337, 338, 382 IPC and Section 4/21...

...ordinary course of nature to cause death.”11. The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 , IPC ) and murder (Section 300 IPC ) has always to be...homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 IPC .12. On the facts and circumstances of the present case in order to sustain the charge under Section 302 IPC ...occurrence, we think that clause “thirdly” of Section 300 IPC has not been established beyond reasonable doubt in this case. The evidence fulfils one of the ingredients of Section 299 , namely, that the...

...of Sections 299 and 300 IPC . The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences:Section 299 ...incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.13. Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300 [ IPC ]. The...to Section 300 [ IPC ].14. Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under...

..., illustration “C” of Section 299 IPC clearly describes when “an act does not amount to culpable homicide”. According to the said illustration, if a person intends to do a particular act, while doing that...death of the labourers, clearly the present case falls under illustration “c” of Section 299 IPC . Therefore, the act allegedly done by the petitioners does “not amount to culpable homicide”. Since the...cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC . The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of...

...)“16. … that the safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of Sections 299 and 300 IPC is to keep in focus the key words used in various clauses of the said sections. Minutely...comparing each of the clauses of Sections 299 and 300 IPC and drawing support from the decisions of this Court in Virsa Singh v. State Of Punjab...other, would be necessary to precisely answer the questions raised.11. Sections 299 and 300 of the Code deal with the definition of “culpable homicide” and “murder...

...of Balbir Singh and the acts committed by the accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 IPC . It is not proved nor does any material exist to state that the accused had an intention...Section 300 IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC and, if at all, the accused can be convicted and sentenced only under Section 299 read with Section 304 (first part) of IPC only. It was further submitted...to contend, that, if at all, the conviction and sentence can be, only under Section 299 read with Section 304 Part I IPC and stress was laid on the following passage: (SCR pp. 608-09...

...of investigation, police arrested the accused persons and filed charge-sheet. The police again filed charge-sheet under Sec. 299 IPC . Thus in view of above, petitioner moved pre-arrest bail before the.... It has also been submitted that the challan has been filed under Sec. 299 IPC .4. Learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel appearing for complainant opposed the bail application...

Keyword Alert(s)

Create alert, update courts.

• Supreme Court & High Court

Overruled By

Our algorithms sense that you may get better results by trying out the same excerpt in our CaseIQ interface.

Culpable Homicide in IPC: Section 299

• Indian Penal Code Subject-wise Law Notes
• July 27, 2023

Chapter 16 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with crimes related to the human body. It covers different kinds of offences involving harm to people. One such offence is “culpable homicide,” as section 299 of the IPC explains.

Culpable Homicide in Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the act of causing the death of another person, which is considered the most terrible crime in the world.

To understand it better, let’s break down the term “culpable homicide.” “Culpable” means being responsible for something wrong or blameworthy. “Homicide” comes from two Latin words, “homi”, meaning man, and “cido” meaning to cut. So, “homicide” refers to killing one human being by another.

What is Culpable Homicide in IPC?

Culpable Homicide in IPC refers to causing the death of a person by engaging in acts with the intention of causing death, intending to cause such bodily injury that is likely to cause death, or having knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. It is a serious offence, but distinct from murder, as it lacks certain elements of premeditation and extreme culpability. 

Culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC focuses on the offender’s intention and knowledge, making it a crucial legal concept in distinguishing various degrees of criminal liability for causing the death of another person.

What is Section 299 IPC?

Section 299 IPC states:

“299. Culpable Homicide.—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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.

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, 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. 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. 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. 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.”

Essentials of Section 299 IPC

Section 299 IPC defines culpable Homicide. It states that if a person causes the death of another in any of the following ways:

• By doing an act to cause death.
• Doing an act to cause bodily injury likely to cause death.
• By doing an act knowing it is likely to cause death.
• Then, that person commits the crime of culpable Homicide in IPC.

Here’s an example to understand this better:

Let’s say there are three people involved, X, Y, and Z. X knows that Z is hiding behind a bush, but Y is unaware of it. X, with the intention of causing Z’s death or knowing that Z’s death is likely, persuades Y to shoot at the bush. Y, following X’s instructions, fires and unfortunately kills Z. In this situation, Y may not be held guilty of any offence, but X is liable for the offence of culpable Homicide in IPC.

Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder

To establish culpable Homicide in IPC not amounting to murder, the Indian Penal Code’s Section 299 defines three crucial elements that need to be proven:

• The intention of causing death.
• The intention of causing bodily injury that is likely to cause death.
• The knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder

On the other hand, for culpable Homicide amounting to murder, Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code outlines four essential elements that need to be established:

• The intention of causing bodily injury to the person, and the offender knows that such injury is likely to cause the person’s death.
• The bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.

The person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it will probably cause death or such bodily injury that is likely to cause death, and the act is carried out without any excuse for incurring such a risk.

Landmark Cases on Culpable Homicide in IPC

The empress v. ganesh dooley & gopi dooley.

In this case, a snake charmer exhibited a venomous snake in public without extracting its fangs. He placed the snake on the head of a spectator, not intending to harm anyone but to demonstrate his skill. The spectator, trying to push off the snake, was bitten and died as a result. The snake charmer was found guilty of culpable Homicide in IPC, not amounting to murder, because even gross negligence can amount to knowledge.

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.

In 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.

Note: In the Palani Goudan case, the accused did not intend to cause the death of the victim, but in the In Re Thavamani case, the accused had the intention to cause the victim’s death from the beginning. The distinction lies in the accused’s intention and the outcome of their actions in each case.

Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code provides a comprehensive framework for understanding culpable Homicide, a grave offence against the human body. It defines culpable Homicide as causing death through acts done with the intention of causing death or bodily injury likely to lead to death or with the knowledge that such acts are likely to result in death. The key distinguishing factor between culpable Homicide and murder, as stated in Section 300, lies in the degree of intention and knowledge of the offender.

Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder involves the intention to cause death or inflict serious bodily injury, while culpable Homicide amounting to murder goes further, encompassing situations where the offender not only intends to cause bodily harm but also knows that the injury is likely to be fatal. The crucial nuances in these definitions highlight the varying degrees of criminal liability.

You might like

Gregory v Piper

Harish Chandra Tiwari v Baiju

Monohar Lal v Seth Hira Lal

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Post Comment

Section 299 IPC: Culpable Homicide

Culpable homicide, as outlined in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is a critical legal concept that plays a pivotal role in the criminal justice system. This provision encompasses a range of acts that result in the unlawful taking of human life.

Understanding the nuances of Section 299 IPC is crucial for both legal professionals and the general public, as it defines the scope of culpability in cases involving the loss of life.

Table of Contents

Introduction to Section 299 IPC

Section 299 of the IPC serves as the foundation for establishing culpable homicide within the Indian legal framework. It provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the circumstances surrounding acts leading to the death of an individual. This section is integral in determining the degree of culpability and the appropriate legal consequences for the accused.

Understanding Culpable Homicide

Culpable homicide, in essence, refers to the act of causing the death of a person with a culpable state of mind. The term ‘culpable’ implies a degree of blameworthiness, and this section of the IPC aims to distinguish between different levels of guilt in cases involving homicide. Degrees of culpable homicide can range from unintentional acts to more deliberate and malicious actions.

Elements of Culpable Homicide

To establish culpable homicide, two key elements must be present: mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act). The accused must have the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, and there must be a corresponding unlawful act leading to the fatal consequences. This combination of mental state and physical action is crucial in determining culpability.

Unintentional acts that result in death, such as negligence or recklessness, also fall under the purview of culpable homicide. Section 299 IPC recognizes that not all instances of causing death are premeditated, and it encompasses a spectrum of culpable actions.

Distinguishing Culpable Homicide from Murder

While culpable homicide and murder both involve causing the death of a person, there are key differences between the two. Murder, as defined in Section 300 IPC , involves a higher degree of culpability and often includes an element of premeditation. Distinguishing between these offenses is crucial in determining the appropriate legal consequences for the accused.

Legal consequences for culpable homicide vary based on factors such as the nature of the act, the intent of the accused, and the surrounding circumstances. Understanding these nuances is essential for ensuring a fair and just legal process.

Penalties and Punishments

Section 299 IPC outlines a range of punishments for culpable homicide, depending on the severity of the offense. The penalties may include imprisonment, fines, or a combination of both. The legal system considers aggravating and mitigating factors when determining the appropriate punishment, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach to sentencing.

Factors influencing sentencing may include the presence of any prior criminal record, the degree of brutality involved, and the impact of the crime on the victim’s family. Balancing the scales of justice requires a thorough examination of all relevant factors to ensure a fair and proportional response.

Landmark Cases and Precedents

Several landmark cases in Indian legal history have shaped the interpretation and application of Section 299 IPC. These cases serve as precedents for future legal decisions and provide insights into the complexities surrounding culpable homicide. Analyzing these cases helps establish a jurisprudential foundation for understanding the nuances of the law.

One such notable case is [Case Name], where the court’s decision clarified the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. These legal precedents contribute to the evolution of jurisprudence and the refinement of legal principles.

Controversies Surrounding Section 299 IPC

Despite its crucial role in the legal system, Section 299 IPC has not been without controversies. Critics argue that the section’s language and criteria for culpability may be vague and open to interpretation, leading to potential miscarriages of justice. Debates surrounding the adequacy of the legal framework highlight the need for periodic reviews and potential amendments to address emerging concerns.

Calls for reform often focus on clarifying the language of the law, providing more explicit guidelines for determining culpability, and ensuring that the legal system keeps pace with societal changes. Balancing the need for legal clarity with the preservation of individual rights remains a challenge that requires careful consideration.

Impact on the Criminal Justice System

Section 299 IPC significantly influences the functioning of the criminal justice system. Legal professionals, including judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, rely on this section to assess the culpability of individuals accused of causing another person’s death. The application of this law has far-reaching consequences, shaping the outcomes of criminal trials and impacting the lives of those involved.

Challenges arise in ensuring consistent and fair application of Section 299 IPC across diverse cases. The complexity of human behavior and the myriad circumstances leading to culpable homicide necessitate a thoughtful and adaptable approach within the criminal justice system.

Recent Developments and Amendments

The legal landscape is dynamic, and amendments to existing laws are not uncommon. Recent developments in criminal law may impact the application of Section 299 IPC. Changes in legislation, whether driven by evolving societal norms or legal precedent, can have profound implications for how the legal system addresses culpable homicide.

It is imperative to stay informed about any recent amendments or developments in criminal law that may impact the interpretation and application of Section 299 IPC. Legal professionals and the public alike should be aware of any changes that may influence the outcomes of cases involving culpable homicide.

In conclusion, Section 299 IPC plays a crucial role in defining and addressing culpable homicide within the Indian legal framework. Understanding the elements, distinguishing it from murder, and recognizing the complexities involved are essential for legal practitioners and the general public alike. Landmark cases, controversies, and the ongoing impact on the criminal justice system highlight the significance of this legal provision.

As the legal landscape evolves, it is essential to remain vigilant to any amendments or developments that may shape the future application of Section 299 IPC. A balanced and nuanced approach to culpable homicide cases is vital for ensuring justice and upholding the principles of a fair legal system.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a difference between culpable homicide and murder.

Yes, culpable homicide involves causing the death of a person with a culpable state of mind, while murder typically involves a higher degree of premeditation.

What factors influence the sentencing for culpable homicide?

Factors such as the nature of the act, the intent of the accused, any prior criminal record, and the impact on the victim’s family can influence sentencing.

Are there recent amendments to Section 299 IPC?

Stay updated with legal developments, as amendments to criminal laws can occur. Check reliable legal sources for the latest information.

How do landmark cases contribute to the interpretation of Section 299 IPC?

Landmark cases provide legal precedents that guide the interpretation and application of Section 299 IPC in subsequent cases.

What controversies surround Section 299 IPC?

Some controversies revolve around the clarity of language and criteria for culpability, leading to debates about potential miscarriages of justice.

IPC Section 299: Culpable homicide

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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.

Illustrations

• 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.
• 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’ 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.
• 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.

Explanations

• 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.
• 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.
• The causing of the death of a child in the mother’ 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.

IPC Section 299: Simplified Explanation

IPC Section 299 defines the offence of culpable homicide, which is the act of causing death where the intention is not to cause death. Still, the actions carry a high risk of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. This section serves as a foundation for distinguishing between different levels of criminal liability in cases of unlawful killing. 

The key elements of culpable homicide under this section are: 

• Intention:  The person has the intention of causing death or bodily injury that is likely to cause death. 
• Knowledge:  The person knows that their act is expected to cause death. 

Culpable homicide under this section is the base for more severe charges such as murder (Section 300) if additional criteria are met. It is crucial in determining the degree of criminal responsibility in cases where death results from risky or harmful actions. 

Is IPC Section 299 Bailable? 

The bailability of an offence under IPC Section 299 depends on how the case is classified and charged by law enforcement. Typically, offences involving culpable homicide are non-bailable due to the severity of the act and potential risk to society. However, the actual decision on bail would depend on judicial discretion after considering the case’s specifics. 

IPC Section 299 Punishment 

The Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (which directly follows from IPC Section 299) is addressed under IPC Section 304. Depending on whether the act is done with or without intent to cause death but with knowledge of likely consequences, the Punishment can range from imprisonment for life to imprisonment for up to ten years and may also include a fine. 

Example of IPC Section 299 

A real-life example of the application of IPC Section 299 occurred in a road rage incident in Delhi in 2018. In a fit of anger, a driver aggressively pushed another driver during an argument. The push led to the latter falling and hitting his head, which eventually caused death due to severe head injuries. The aggressor was charged under IPC Section 299 for culpable homicide, as his actions, though not intended to kill, were likely to cause death or serious injury. The case highlighted the importance of understanding how aggressive or harmful actions can lead to severe legal consequences under this section. 

About The Author

Vardhaman Raj

Related posts, ipc section 171b: bribery, section 171c: undue influence at elections, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Rostrum’s Law Review | ISSN: 2321-3787

Misinterpreting the ‘Cause of death as Culpable Homicide’ in Explanations 1 and 2 of Section 299 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: A Critical Analysis

• Authored by - Tauheed Alam
• Issue - RLR Volume VII Issue I

Causation has long been a significant and perplexing subject in criminal law. Explanation 1 and 2 of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 have been introduced to offer clarification on the issue of causality in homicide cases. However, it has been seen that both Indian courts and prominent scholars have misconstrued the interpretation of reasons 1 and 2, resulting in incorrect rulings. This research paper aims to investigate the research topic and clarify the understanding of explanations 1 and 2 by accessing the proper understanding. The investigation is exploratory and interpretive in character. This article is intended to highlight the repercussions of such flawed understanding and seeks to clarify law on this point by tapping the understanding in right perspective. This research paper is divided into four parts. The paper begins with the discussion on the relevant law of section 299 of Indian penal Code, 1860. It will then go on to explore the existing misreading of explanation 1 of section 299 which has led to erroneous judgment. Thereafter, the importance of cause of death as an essentiality for invoking liability under Section 299 will be established. Afterwards, the difficulty which arises in ascertaining the actual cause of death will be delineated. Following this, the correct understanding related to the identified research problem will be tapped and final part will be dealing with conclusion.

Introduction

‘Homicide’ means the killing of one person by another. It is believed to be the gravest act committed against any human being. However, every case of homicide is not punishable, for instance, excusable homicide (killing in self-defense), justifiable homicide (killing in pursuance of lawful authority), or accidental homicide (killing by reason of a mistake of fact, etc.).

Under the scheme of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the punishable homicide is dealt with in different sections depending on the variant degrees of mens rea with which such homicides are committed. Of these, two such gravest cases are dealt with under Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in which homicide is committed either intentionally or knowingly wherein section 299 defines the term culpable homicide simpliciter and section 300 mentions the circumstances when culpable homicide becomes murder.

Since the codification, it is worth noting that the law relating to culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has always remained one of the most misunderstood and perplexing provisions. Amongst it, one of the widely held misconception is concerning Explanation 1 and 2 of section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, which is that these two explanations are actually referring to circumstances in which the presence or absence of certain factors in causing death nevertheless treated as culpable homicide which the researcher fear has nothing to do with it. This flawed misunderstanding has led to some very erroneous judgments.

The researcher will try to establish that in real these two explanations are only clarifying the question of cause of death and not the culpability of homicide. As the question of cause of death is the first and foremost requirement to be clarified before invoking the culpability under sections 299 & 300. Surprisingly, till date this issue has hardly been noticed and investigated. Accordingly, so far, no such attempt is found in the research literature where any attempt has been made to address this issue. Perhaps this will be the first study of its kind, which will investigate, unravel and clear up following questions like (1) Whether Explanation 1 of Section 299 is limited to the question of cause of death only or with the culpability of homicide or both? (2) Whether the existing understanding has led to erroneous judgment in the cases of homicide? (3) Whether there exists legislative error or it is the case of misconstruction of the explanation 1?

The Law: Section 299- Culpable Homicide & its Explanations

Before clarifying the meaning of relevant section 299 and its explanations [1] , it is imperative to outline the essential ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide which are as follows:

• there must be death of a person.
• the death should have been caused by the act of accused person and
• the act causing death should have been done with:

(a) The intention of causing death; or

(b) The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or

(c) With knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.

The word “whoever causes death” in the above-mentioned phrase denotes, first, the death of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context [2] which is the first and foremost prerequisite to satisfy in order to attract the provision of section 299. Second, the accused’s act (which includes both action and omission) must be proven to have caused the death. Third, the death had to have been caused intentionally or knowingly. As a result, in order to bring a case of murder within the scope of culpable homicide, the accused’s behavior must have resulted in the death of the dead; otherwise, the question of culpable homicide cannot be raised. The second key factor, intention or knowledge, comes into action only once this prerequisite has been met. Consequently, the first two explanations of section 299’s definition are only attached to clarify the question of cause of death, and not the liability of culpable homicide. Whether homicide was culpable homicide or not, these two explanations do not relate at all to this question.

It is, however, a common misunderstanding that Explanation 1 talks about a situation wherein the injured person was already suffering from some disease, disorder or bodily infirmity which accelerated his death. The fact that it was his peculiar physical condition that accelerated his death will not mitigate the culpability or guilt of the person who caused injury. Simply put, the accused cannot escape liability of committing culpable homicide by saying that the victim would not have died had he not suffered from such disease, disorder or infirmity. In reality, explanation 1 deals with such situations when it becomes difficult to ascertain the actual cause of death as certain types of injuries do not always result immediately in the death of the deceased; the injured person dies after a gap of long or short period of time.

Accordingly, all that is explained in these two explanations is to clarify the law that in such cases of homicide wherein the accused’s act shall be considered as the cause of death which is the first essential condition for the application of Section 299. The fact that the death of a human being is caused by an injury of the accused is not enough to attract the liability of culpable homicide under section 299, save that such death is caused intentionally or knowingly which are the essential ingredients of culpable homicide under section 299.

Precisely for that very reason the Supreme Court in Anda v. State of Rajasthan [3] outlined that the words ‘intention’ or ‘knowledge’ embodied in Section 299 signifies the existence of positive mental condition and this mental state is the special mens rea essential for the offence. Hence, wherein the death is caused without ‘requisite condition i.e., intention’ or ‘knowledge’ won’t be considered culpable homicide even if that act is criminal in nature which resulted in death. Moreover, unless the cause of death relates to the direct result of accused’s act, provision of section 299 won’t be attracted.  As a result, it becomes imperative to clarify the law on such question of cause of death which is addressed in the first two explanations.

Statutory Misconstruction: Indian Courts & Illustrious Scholars

As already pointed out that Explanations 1 and 2 of Section 299 do not deal with the culpability of the offender for homicide, but, only to the actual cause of death but Courts have been misconstruing the understanding of these two explanations into one of a case of culpable homicide. One of the main reasons for such misunderstanding is that courts often in the case of homicide assume in advance that such cases either will be Murder or Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder.

Nonetheless, homicide, in every case may not necessarily be murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but it can also be a case of hurt or grievous hurt or causing death by negligence which are altogether different offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal Code. It is only where homicide is caused intentionally or knowingly that such cases would fall within the ambit of culpable homicide. Hence, when the victim was suffering from a disease of which accused has no knowledge and the accused inflicts such an intentional injury which is not likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, causes death of such ailing person won’t be considered as a case of culpable homicide because knowledge of illness is must before invoking liability for murder under clause (2) of Section 300.

To illustrate the gravity of this issue, it is necessary to look at some of the cases decided in this regard by the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. For instance, in Balbir Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab [4] the Punjab and Haryana High Court had held accused accountable under sec. 304 part II of IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The deceased was already suffering from the disease of enlarged heart and some blockade in the artery of which accused were unaware. Deceased was attacked and assaulted by the accused in such a manner that all the accused took the deceased in their grip. They pressed him and threw him on the ground. Subsequently, all the accused left the spot. When deceased’s aides came to the spot, they found that he has already died. The medical report of the deceased found that there were no internal injuries, and the cause of death was due to cardiac arrest as a result of ischemic heart disease (for short I.H.D), which was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, instead of interpreting Explanation 1 of section 299 as a mere explanation clarifying the issue of the cause of death, misunderstood it as one of the cases of culpable homicide, consequently, held them liable under sec. 304-part II IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The said High Court failed to appreciate the fact the liability under section 299 arises only because of intention or knowledge. In this case, the concerned court assumed the knowledge on the part of the accused about the illness of deceased, as there was no fact which establishes that the accused were having knowledge about the enlarged heart of the deceased nonetheless Punjab and Haryana High Court held them liable under sec. 304 part II IPC by invoking the Explanation 1 of section 299 to cover this case as one of the cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Furthermore, the Court also failed to appreciate the law that Clause 2 of section 300 IPC covers such cases of homicide wherein if the death is caused 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 is murder and punishable under section 302 and not under section 304 Part II of IPC.

This misreading of explanation 1 is not a new phenomenon, in the year 1943 the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Munni Lal vs. Emperor [5] case convicted the accused under section 304 part II for culpable homicide even though the accused was unaware of the enlarged spleen which was found in the medical report as the cause of death. In this case, the prime accused Munni Lal along with his nephew Megh nath chased the deceased and Meghnath with a stick blow knocked the deceased down. Subsequently, Munni Lal sat on deceased chest and began to strangle him and suddenly deceased died. The medical report found many injuries which include fracture of ribs and of the windpipe, but the actual cause of death was the shock and internal bleeding due to the rupture of spleen which was significantly enlarged of which accused had no knowledge. The report further suggested that had that spleen was not enlarged, deceased would not have died of other injuries including fracture of ribs, and despite this the Allahabad High Court convicted the accused under section 304 part II for culpable homicide. The operative part reads as follows:

Section 304, second part must be read with the last few words of S.299. It has no reference to S.300 or to the exceptions mentioned therein and must not be confused with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When a man kneels on the body of another and presses his throat with great violence he knows he is likely to cause death and if death results of strangulation, the knowledge merges into intention and he is guilty of murder under S.300 firstly, unless he can obtain the benefit of any of the exceptions to S.300. But when during the act of strangulation the victim dies suddenly due to rupture of the enlarged spleen and the enlargement of the spleen was not known to the accused and the other injuries would not have been sufficient to cause death if spleen had not been ruptured the accused’s knowledge stops short of intention and the case comes under S.304 part 2.

Similarly, in another case [6] wherein the accused had beaten the deceased with fist and leg blows but as per the medical report the death has been caused due to cardiac arrest which could be on account of fear of beating nevertheless the High Court held the accused guilty for culpable homicide not amounting under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Equally, in the case of Sundaram vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [7] deceased’s medical report suggested that the cause of death was the shock from the injuries leading to the cardio-respiratory failure, despite this, the Supreme Court observed that there exist grey area concerning the exact cause of death and accordingly held that the accused can’t be convicted under section 302 for murder and find him guilty for the offence of culpable homicide punishable under 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In another case [8] accused attacked the deceased with knife and hit the abdomen and afterward ran away with weapon. After that, the deceased was taken to hospital immediately and the doctor operated the deceased and stitched the wound, but the deceased died of cardiac arrest the next day. The Medical report found the injury fatal, but it was not clear whether the cardiac arrest occurred due to the injury caused by the accused.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court observed that cardiac arrest may have occurred due to subsequent supervening event as it cannot be said with certainty from the available evidence that the cardiac arrest occurred due to the injury inflicted by the accused nevertheless held that the offence committed by the accused is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 part II of Indian Penal Code.

In all these cases of homicide it is evident that respective Courts held accused liable under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code even though the actual cause of death was not attributable to the injury caused by the accused. It is a well-established principle that liability for culpable homicide can arise only when it is established with evidence that the accused act or injury caused the death of the deceased and otherwise not, whatsoever the case may be.

The courts have failed to realise this very basic and essential requirement in all of these case due to the misreading of first two explanations of section 299 as the cases actually referring to circumstances in which the presence or absence of certain factors in causing death nevertheless treated as culpable homicide instead of understanding these two explanations as the clarifications on the question of cause of death which is the first and foremost requirement before invoking accused’s liability for culpable homicide amounting or not amounting to murder under sections 302 and 304 respectively.

Not only the Indian Courts but many illustrious commentators and jurists have misunderstood the explanation 1 and 2 in terms of offence of culpable homicide. For instance, Morgan and MacPherson instead of interpreting the meaning of explanation 1 as a clarification on the cause of death misconstrues the action of the accused person as an offence and him as an offender, which has accelerated the death of the deceased who is already ailing under an illness and going to die soon. He writes, [9]

An offence affecting the life of a person who must soon die, either from a mortal disease or in the course of nature from old age and decay, is not less offence than one which affects the life of a person in strong health. The offender causes death in one case by accelerating that event by a few months, or days, or hours; in the other case, possibly, he hastens the event by many years.

In the same vein eminent Scholar R.A. Nelson in his commentary of Indian Penal Code also misconstrued the meaning of Explanation 1 of Section 299 into the culpability of homicide rather than limiting the meaning of the explanation 1 only to question of cause of death. For that end, illustrious scholar assumed the presence of the two essential elements (i.e., intention and knowledge) in the statutory provision of explanation 1, without which a liability for culpable homicide cannot arise at all. As he writes in the interpretation of explanation 1 [10] ,

“The explanation assumes that the bodily injury was inflicted with the intention of causing death or the knowledge that it would be likely to cause death.”

Similarly, illustrious commentator PSA Pillai has also misunderstood the meaning of attached explanations 1 and 2 as follows, [11]

The definition itself provides for three circumstances, wherein the presence or absence of certain factors in causing death is nevertheless treated as causing culpable homicide. These circumstances are dealt with in explanations 1-3.

Equally, notable jurist Ratanlal & Dhirajlal instead of constructing the meaning of explanation 1 as a clarification on the question of cause of death, misread it as one of cases of culpable homicide. Accordingly, when he realizes that the requisite mens rea of culpable homicide is not present in the statutory language of explanation 1, he suggested that explanation 1 should be read by assuming the presence of one of the elements of the offence of culpable homicide, [12]

A person causing bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease, or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerating the death of that other, is deemed to have ‘caused his death’. But one of the elements of the offence of culpable homicide must be present.

Similar view is expressed by Prof. S.N. Mishra as well. [13] All these jurists failed to appreciate the fact that Explanation 1 is merely clarifying the question of cause of death of such cases of homicide, where it would have been difficult to ascertain whether the death is caused by the act or bodily injury of the accused or by pre-existing disease.

It is clear from the above that how scholars have misconstrued the meaning of explanations 1 and 2 into as one of the situations for culpable homicide. Additionally, these two explanations make no mention of the mental state of intention or knowledge, which is the sine quo non for section 299 to apply, but these commentators and jurists assume the presence of intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to bring it up as one of the liabilities for culpable homicide rather than taking it as a clarification on the question of the cause of death. However, it is not that every scholar has misunderstood the meaning of explanation 1 as a case of culpable homicide rather than construing it as a clarification on cause of death. Notable commentator Sir Mayne has very rightly interpreted its meaning into cause of death, which reads as follows,

“Explanation 1 of section 299 recognizes the rule of common law that even if a person is actually dying, any injury which accelerates the death is deemed to be cause of it. [14] ”

Therefore, to be charged with culpable homicide the accused must have caused death by doing an act with the intention to cause death, or with the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is, by such act, likely to cause death. [15] Despite this, Courts have clarified [16] it that wherein the injury was not such as is likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but if death occurs due to any pre-existing disease of which accused has no knowledge, it won’t be an offence under section 299 i.e. culpable homicide.

“Cause of Death”: The First Essential Condition for Determining Culpable Homicide

The Section 299 begins with the words ‘whoever causes death’ which signifies that the liability of culpable homicide can emanates only when death is caused by the act of human being i.e., homicide. Notably, not every case of homicide is punishable. There may be situations when a person won’t be liable for homicide. Such as, killing in self-defence, or in pursuance of a lawful authority, or by reason of a mistake of fact, etc., is not punishable under the law. Similarly, wherein death is caused due to accident or misfortune, or by doing an act in good faith or with no malafide intention for the benefit of the deceased, the accused is exempted from criminal liability for such nature of homicide. Thus, killing of a human being by another human being when committed intentionally, knowingly, rashly, or negligently is punishable under the various sections of Indian Penal Code. As a result, the criminal liability under section 299 i.e., for culpable homicide originates when the death is caused intentionally or knowingly.  Whereas when the death is caused by rash and negligent act, it is punishable under section 304-A, and if the death is caused by accident, then it is exonerated under section 80. Thus, firstly, it becomes important to ascertain the cause of death in case of homicide, only then the liability under section 299 can be invoked. It is not necessary that the cause of death be direct.

If we consider the above-mentioned law carefully, we will notice that in the first two explanations there is no mention of the word culpable homicide while in the third explanation it is clearly stated. This is because, the first two explanations of section 299 do not deal at all with the blameworthiness of culpable homicide but focus solely on the question of the cause of death. Whereas the explanation 3 is completely different from the first two explanations wherein the liability of culpable homicide is discussed rather than the cause of death, which arises only when any part of the child comes out of the mother’s womb and death is caused to such child, it would amount to culpable homicide irrespective of the fact whether the child was fully born or not. But, causing death to a child who is still (and completely) in the mother’s womb won’t amount to culpable homicide.

Now, naturally, the question arises here as to why the first two explanations provides the clarification for the issue of cause of death while the section is essentially defining the offence of culpable homicide. This is because the issue of ’cause of death’ is the first and foremost requirement to be established for the application of section 299 which in many cases of homicide becomes very difficult to ascertain. The term “whoever causes death” of section 299 may seem simple enough to understand, but in many cases of homicide, this phrase becomes very important term in determining the actual cause of death. As, it has to be ascertained in every case of homicide before the application of section 299 whether the accused’s act has caused the death of the deceased or some other supervening causes which is so unrelated to the act of the accused.

The section 299 commences with the phrase ‘whoever causes death’ which establishes the fact that in order to invoke the application of section 299 it is first and foremost essential condition to establish that the accused’s act has caused the death only then the question of culpable homicide could arise. And only when this condition is satisfied, the other important elements i.e. intention or knowledge of section 299 comes into play. Notably, the liability of culpable homicide is designed on the mental elements of intention and knowledge in section 299. Therefore, even when the death is caused by the act of accused but without the requisite intention or knowledge specified in section 299, such homicide won’t amount to culpable homicide.

The Courts also in several cases has underlined the importance for such verification is to appreciate whether the cause of death is a direct result of the accused’s act or not. The connection between the primary cause and the death should not be too remote. There needs to have a proximate causal link between the two. [17] The test for the determination of cause of death in section 299 necessitates that the homicide must be a direct consequence of the accused’s act as any other intervening or supervening cause of death which is independent or unconnected with the injuries caused to the deceased won’t be able to attract the application of section 299 i.e. Culpable Homicide.

Difficulty in Ascertaining Cause of Death

It is now well established from the above, the question of cause of death is the first and foremost condition to be clarified before invoking liability for culpable homicide. However, it is to be borne in mind that there lies difficulty in ascertaining actual cause of death wherein inconspicuous multiple causation comes into play which ultimately resulted in the death of the victim. For instance,

• A person who must soon die due to disease or illness he’s already suffering from or old age, has received an injury by an accused which hasten the death.
• A person sustained an injury by an accused for which surgical operation is performed on him but ultimately dies.
• Accused caused the fatal injury which could be cured by the proper medical remedies and skillful treatment, but the man refuses to undergo such treatment or received such treatment but failed to observe the medical advice or somehow not able to get such medical treatment due to which he dies.

In the above-mentioned scenarios and other like manner cases, it becomes quite difficult to ascertain the actual cause of death. As the connection between the accused’s injury and the death could seems to be direct and distinct but not immediate. In each of the mentioned scenarios the deceased would not have died, had he not received an injury from the accused because it is very evident from the fact and circumstances of each case that some other supervening factors which were more immediate have caused the death. However, wherein death is caused due to the intervention of subsequent cause although the connection between the death and the injury is direct and distinct, but if other subsequent causes are distinct from and independent of the injury then such injury won’t be considered as the cause of death even in such cases accused is acting intentionally or knowingly. For instance, a, hoping that B, his enemy, will catch smallpox, induces him to visit an area where the disease is widespread. As a result, B gets smallpox and subsequently dies from it. Here of course, it seems that A’s act has ultimately resulted in the death of B, but so far and so dependent on so many contingencies that it can hardly be said that he killed him.

The crucial aspect that plays a vital part in identifying the cause of death is whether or not any intervening act breaks the chain of causation. In order to hold the accused’s person’s act liable for the death, it must be proven that factual and legal causation must concur. [18] It is a well settled principle of ‘Egg Shell Rule’ that the accused must ‘‘take their victim as they find them’. [19] Explanation 1 & 2 of Sec 299 are based on this principle wherein accused action is deemed to have caused the death of the victim.

Hence, the very rationale behind attaching first two explanations in section 299 is to clarify certain circumstances wherein it becomes difficult to ascertain the cause of death.  As the establishment of cause of death is sine quo non for the liability of culpable homicide, the prosecution needs to establish the proximate cause of death and it is not required to exhaust all causes that may lead to a disease or ailment. [20] In Simpler case of death where death results directly from the act of the accused, the ascertainment of cause of death won’t poses any difficulty. But, where the death is caused by remote or indirect causes, it becomes quite difficult to establish the exact cause of death. Consequently, causes of such cases of death should be ascertained in the light of explanation 1 and 2 of section 299. For that reason, in State of Kerala v. Narayanankutty [21] the Kerala High Court tried to clarify the understanding in determination of cause of death in the following words,

An act is said to cause death when death results from the act itself or from some consequences necessarily or naturally flowing from the act, and reasonably contemplated as its result. Where without the intervention of any considerable change of circumstances death is connected with the act of violence by a chain of causes and effects, death must be regarded as the proximate and not too remote a consequence of the act. The cause must not only be the causa sine qua non, but it must also be a cause reasonably proximate; but the doctrine of criminal causation has reasonable limits.

Accordingly, only in cases of death wherein the intervening cause and its consequences thereof could not have been foreseen by the accused or by the man of ordinary prudence, accused’s act could be absolved as the cause of death, otherwise consequences necessarily or naturally flowing from the accused act will be considered as the cause of death. As the determination of cause of death doesn’t pose any problem in most of the cases of the death in which the death has resulted from the direct injury of the accused but becomes difficult in cases where the death is not directly caused by the injury of the accused but due to a complication or development or in a case where death is not immediate but gets delayed. Accordingly, in order to provide clarity on the difference of direct and remote causes in cases of death, framers of the Indian Penal Code suggested, [22]

There is undoubtedly a great difference between acts which cause death immediately, and acts which cause death, remotely; between acts which are almost certain to cause death, and acts which cause death only under extraordinary circumstances. But that difference, we conceive, is a matter to be considered by the tribunals when estimating the effect of the evidence in a particular case, not by the legislature in framing the general rule.

Similarly, Halsbury’s Law of England [23] clarifies the law on the question of cause of death as follows,

For the purposes of offences of homicide, a person causes the death of another where by any act or omission he accelerates the death of that other. The act or omission need not be the sole or the substantial cause but ii must be one of the causes, and one that is more than minimal. It is, therefore, possible to have two or more independent operative causes of death, and any person whose conduct constitutes a cause may be convicted of an offence in respect of the death.

This means that in order to determine the true cause of death, the causal relationship between the act and the death must be direct and unmistakable. It does not have to be immediate, but it should not be too far away. Thus, if the relationship between the act and death is ambiguous or or if there are concurrent contributory causes that make the questioned act as a substantial cause highly improbable, or if the link between the act and death is severed by the involvement of a subsequent cause, the questioned act will not be considered as the true cause of death. As there may be numerous cases [24] where the connection between the cause and effect is not only definite but obvious nonetheless such cases in which death is remote and highly improbable consequence of the act would not attract criminal responsibility unless done with the criminal intention or knowledge.

Noteworthy, the Supreme Court in a case [25] observed that the cause of death need not be direct, but it is also equally important that there is proximate causal connection between the primary cause and the death. The causal connection should not be too remote. There needs to have a proximate causal link between the two. Additionally, wherein the cause of death is mainly due to injury of the accused but bleeding and resultant heart failure are the effects of such injury, then in such cases these effects won’t be treated as different causes of death. [26] Similarly, wherein acid burnt victim has stayed alive and developed other complications for few days in an intentional acid burn case, still accused’s act of throwing acid will be considered as the cause of death bearing direct nexus  between the burn injuries and resultant death. [27] However, where homicide is a result of intervening superadded secondary haemorrhage caused due to secondary infection, then in such circumstances death may not be said to be a direct result of the injuries caused to the deceased. [28] But if the supervening causes in a case of death can be attributed to the injuries inflicted by the accused even if the death was not the direct result of the injuries then in such case accused’s injury shall be deemed to be the cause of death. [29] Similarly, the Kerala High Court held accused liable for murder, where the victim was stabbed in the back and suffered a spinal cord injury, which paralyzed her lower limbs and caused her to have bed-sores, and ultimately leads to the death of that women after several months. [30] However, it is notable that where the intent to cause death is clearly stated, it does not matter that the death was caused by a remote cause. The cause of death may be determined on broad probabilities. [31] Hence, when the death is principally owing to an injury caused by the accused, and bleeding and subsequent heart failure are the consequences of that injury, they will not be classified as separate causes of death. [32] Furthermore, where a person is burned with acid, the fact that the victim lived for a few days and developed other complications during that period does not negate the clear link between the injuries and death. [33]

Tapping the Correct Understanding and Rationale of Explanation 1 & 2

So far it has been made clear that before invoking the liability of culpable homicide under section 299 of IPC, the Court must ascertain the actual cause of death. Accordingly, explanations 1 and 2 are appended to Section 299 to provide clarity on the question of cause of death in specific cases of homicide wherein the act causing death operates not alone but other supervening causes also contribute to bring about that result. Consequently, these two explanations clear up the law that in such perplexed cases of homicides wherein it becomes difficult to ascertain the actual cause of death that the injury caused by the accused person shall be treated as the cause of death or not. For that very reason in the first two explanations there is no mention of the word ‘culpable homicide’ which is, however, present in the third explanation of the Section 299 but many jurists and scholars have failed to comprehend this. This very clearly depicts the legislative intention of the framer of the code that the first two explanations are not at all discussing the culpability of culpable homicide but only clarifies the question of death.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the two specific circumstances of homicide mentioned in Explanations 1 and 2 of section 299 are not the exhaustive situations in which the accused’s act is to be regarded as the cause of death, but only illustrative. The fact of the matter is that accused’s act shall be deemed to have caused the death in every such case of homicide wherein death has resulted from the act itself or from some necessary consequence or the consequence which naturally flowed from the act and the result of the act was reasonably contemplated. In such cases of death, the court, however, before imposing the liability of an accused person for culpable homicide, needs to address the question of cause of death by weighing the evidence to see which of the two causes i.e., bodily injury or disease is the real cause of death. It is, however, not necessary in such cases of homicide that such evidence should enable the court to assign the two causes and the degree in which each of such causes contributed to the homicide. What is required that the Court must be satisfied (1) that the death at the time when it occurs is not caused solely by the disease in which the deceased person already from (2) that death must be caused by the bodily injury of the accused in such a manner that it has accelerated the death. [34]

Similarly, explanation 2 also provides clarification on the question of death in cases wherein the deceased, to whom injury was caused by the accused, could have recovered and the death could have been avoided if prompt and proper medical treatment had been given to him. In such situations too, bodily injury inflicted in the first place by the accused shall be treated as the cause of death even though the deceased eventually dies of not getting the proper remedies and skillful treatment. Notably, here again the culpability of the accused person is not what has been discussed rather only the question of cause of death is being clarified.  In clarification of the phrase ‘Proper remedies and skillful treatment’ from explanation 2, illustrious scholars Morgan and Macpherson write as follows

“Proper remedies and skillful treatment” may not be within the reach of the wounded man; or, if they are at hand he may be unable or unwilling to resort to them. But this is immaterial so far as relates to the due interpretation of the words “cause of death.” The primary cause which sets in motion some other cause, -as the severe wound which induces gangrene or fever, -and the ultimate effect, death, are sufficiently connected as cause and effect, notwithstanding that supervening sickness or disease might have been cured by medical skill. All that it is essential is to establish is, that the death has been caused by the bodily injury, and, if there be any intervening cause, that is connected with a sufficient degree of probability with the primary one.

Accordingly, in Kishore Singh v. State of M. P [35] case wherein accused inflicted grievous injuries to the deceased. Afterwards, the deceased had undergone a head operation which was successful. Doctor’s report suggested that the injuries caused to the skull were likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The deceased recovered from the operation but died after the gap of one from operation. The post- mortem report establishes that death was due to the previous injury caused to scalp, the chest and the complications which followed from the same. The court held that in reaching conclusion whether the inflicted injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the possibility that the efficient and skillful medical treatment might have prevented the fatal consequence is totally irrelevant. However, one must be remindful of the fact that in all such cases of death wherein the inflicted injury has only caused a slight wound or hurt but the accused did not resort to the “proper remedies and skillful treatment” which ultimately aggravated the injury in such a manner that it resulted into the death, such injury won’t be considered as the cause of death. Consequently, in such circumstances, the death must be linked with the act or bodily injury or other primary cause, not only by a chain of causes and effects, but by such direct influence as is calculated to produce the effect without the intervention of any significant change of circumstance. [36] Too, the Court of Appeal in R v Blaue [37] held that refusal of medical treatment does not break chain of causation nevertheless it might have saved the life of the deceased. Similarly, the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Malcherek [38] held that the discontinuance of life support system does not break chain of causation. Lord Parker, CJ in R v Smith [39] held as follows,

“If at the time of death the original wound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death is also operating. Only if it can be said that the original wounding is merely the setting in which another cause operates can it be said that the death did not result from the wound. Putting it another way, only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound.”

Hence, it is clear that the explanations 1 and 2 clarifies the perplexity in determining the cause of death by establishing the rule that the death must be a direct consequence of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. Intervening or supervening cause, if any, should not be independent or unconnected with the injuries sustained by the deceased. The prosecutor must demonstrate both factual and proximate (legal) causation in order to secure a conviction. The guiding principle in this respect is that the accused’s conduct will be regarded the proximate cause of death if the death occurs as a “natural and probable consequence” of the acts. Moreover, there must be no intervening circumstance that is sufficient to break the chain of causation.

To sum up the whole discussion, it is submitted that explanation 1 and 2 of Section 299 has been misunderstood for decades as one of the cases of culpable homicide, leading to many erroneous decisions by the courts. Explanations 1 and 2 of Section 299 does not at all deals with the culpability of homicide rather it only clarifies the question of death which is the first and foremost criteria to be established in order to invoke the liability of the accused for culpable homicide. As it is clear from the discussion that the question of culpability for homicide arises only when it is done with requisite mens rea under section 299 i.e., intention or knowledge. Hence the accused’s act causing death without ‘requisite intention’ or ‘knowledge’ provided under section 299 cannot be culpable homicide but may be punishable under hurt or grievous hurt or section 304-A i.e. causing death by negligence.

The question of culpability for homicide arises only when it is done with requisite mens rea under section 299 i.e., intention or knowledge. Even if it is established that the death is caused by the act of the accused, but the accused had no knowledge or intention that the injury caused by him would endanger life or would likely cause but which in normal circumstances would not do so, the accused would not be liable for causing culpable homicide but may be liable for causing hurt or the grievous hurt depending upon the nature of the injury caused. The liability under Explanation 1 for causing culpable homicide would not arise where the injury inflicted by the accused person was not of such a nature that was likely to cause death but the victim died because his heart was weak and dilated, and there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death and he had no knowledge about the heart disease the deceased was suffering from, it was held that the offence did not fall under this Section.

Whereas, if the act of the accused, which caused death, is done with intent to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused is murder under section 300 and punishable under 302 of the IPC unless such case of murder falls under any of the exceptions of the Section 300 which is punishable under 304 of the IPC. It means that even if it is established that accused deliberate act has aggravated the underlying disease which ultimately resulted into the death of such person but if accused wasn’t aware of such underlying disease and his act was not likely to cause death of an ordinary person, he can’t be held liable for the culpable homicide defined under 299 of IPC. Hence, it clearly establishes the fact that the explanations 1 and 2 only answers the question pertaining to the cause of death when it becomes difficult in some cases of homicide to ascertain the real cause of death. Once it is cleared out that the accused act has caused the death then only second level inquiry starts concerning intention or knowledge.

The Author of this manuscript is Tauheed Alam, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun.

References:

[1] Section 299. Culpable homicide. —whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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.

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.

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 skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3. —The causing of the death of 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.

[2] Section 46, The Indian Penal Code, 1860

[3] AIR 1966 SC 148

[4] (Crl. Appeal No 877-SB of 2004)

[5] Munni Lal Vs. Emperor A.I.R (30) 1943

[6] Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tejinder Singh 2015(1) SimLC 104

[7] 2000(1) JT 443

[8] Augustin alias Babu V. State of Kerela, 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1152

[9] Morgan W. and A.G. Macpherson, The Indian Penal Code, (Act. XLV. of 1860) with notes. 227, Calcutta and London G.C. Hay & Co., 1861.

[10]   R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 2617, Lexis Nexis, 3rd Vol, 10 th edn., 2008.

[11] KI Vibhute, PSA Pilla’s Criminal Law 571, Lexis Nexis, 12 th ed., 2015

[12] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code 500, Lexis Nexis, 34 th edn., 2016

[13] S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code 462, Central Law Publications, 20 th edn.

[14] John D. Mayne, The Criminal Law of India 592-593, Higginbotham & Co., Madras (1896)

[15] Section 299 of Indian Penal Code.

[16] Bharat Singh v Emperor, AIR 1932 Oudh 279, Empress v Fox, ILR 2 All 522, Emperor v Ismail, AIR 1918 Sind 60

[17] Moti Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 900; Joginder Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1876

[18] Yashwant vs The State Of Maharashtra, (2018) 4MLJ (Crl)10(SC). It was observed that Section 299 of IPC indicates two types of causations, one the factual causation and   the   second   the   legal   causation.   Coming   to   the   factual causation, it is a matter of fact as to whether the action of the accused caused death of the person. But the second aspect concerns itself, whether the death can be sufficiently imputed to the   accused’s   action as being responsible legally.

[19] R v Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271

[20] Pritam Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 2604

[21] 1980 KLT 908

[22] Anderson, G. W., Macleod, J. M., Millett, F., Baron Macaulay, T. B. M., A Penal Code. India 56, Printed at the Bengal Military Orphan Press, by G.H. Huttmann. 1837

[23] Baron Hailsham of St. Marylebone, Q. H., Earl of Halsbury, H. S. G, Halsbury’s Laws of England 1156 Vol. 11. United Kingdom: Butterworth, 1976

[24] For instance, a very slight nervous shock might kill a person as effectively as a shot or a stab injury who is suffering from a heart disease or sudden communication of bad news can cause the death of a sick person as effectively as a man hanging over a steep precipice might be killed by loosening of a stone or a root.

[25] Moti Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 900

[26] State of Rajasthan v Dhool Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1264

[27] Sudershan Kumar v State of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2328

[28] Dev Raj v State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 950

[29] Rewa Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 CriLJ 858

[30] AIR 1958 Ker 207

[31] Patel Hiralal Joitaram v State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 2944

[32] State of Rajasthan v Dhool Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1264

[33] Sudershan Kumar v State of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2328

[34] Supra note 9 at P 228

[35] (1977) 4 SCC

[36] Supra note 9 at 229

[37] (1975) 61 Cr App R 271.

[38] (1981) 2 All ER 422 (CA)

[39] (1959) 2 All ER 193

Section 299 of Indian Penal Code with Case laws

299. culpable homicide.

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Explanation 3. - The causing of the death of 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.

299 IPC Case Laws (Supreme Court and High Courts)

Ghufar (1887) P.R No. 62 of 1887

Rama AIR 1969 Goa 116

Ballan 1955 Cr. L. J. 1448

Mohammed Hossein, (1864) WR (Cr) 31

Nga Min Po, (1900) 1 UBR 1897-1901 288

King v. Aung Nywn AIR 1940 Rang. 259

Sumer Singh (1941) O.W.N. 791

Naga Po Nyein AIR 1933 Rang 338

Gabbar Pandey (1927) 7 Pat. 638

Harman (1921) 22 Cr. L.J. 726

Mansel Pleydell AIR 1926 Lah 313

Jamaludin (1892) Unrep Cr. C. 603

Kangla (1898) 18 A.W.N. 163

Ketabdi Mundul (1879) 4 Cal. 764

Laxman Kalu (1968) 71 Bom. L.R. 244 (SC)

Ganesh Dooley (1879) 5 Cal. 351 and Poonai Fatemah (1869) 12 WR (cr) 7

Mst. Tulsa ILR 20 All 143

Sreenarayan (1947) 27 Pat. 67

Palani Goundan (1919) 42 Mad 547

Bai Jiba (1917) 19 Bom LR 823

Mana (1930) 32 Bom LR 1143

Abrahim Sheikh AIR 1964 SC 1263

Chaturnath (1919) 21 Bom LR 1101

Fox (1879) 2 All 522

Punchunun Tantee (1866) 5 WR (Cr) 97

Idu Beg (18810 3 All. 776

Megha Meeah (1865) 2 WR (Cr.) 39

Kusa Majhi v. State of Orissa 1985 Cr. L.J. 1460

Munnilal AIR 1943 All 853

Ramesh Kumar V. State of Bihar 1993 Cri L.J. 3137 (SC)

Ismail (1917) 19 Cr. L.J. 319: AIR 1918 SC 560

Krishnaswami AIR 1965 Mad. 261

Sah Pai (1936) 14 Rang. 643

Mc Intyre (1847) 2 Cox. 379

Sobha (1935) 11 Luck 401

Davis (1883) 15 Cox 174

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

IPC Few important Sections, Crimes and Punishment

Bailable Offences under IPC

Non Bailable offences under IPC

FIR Registration - Complaint, oral or written

Type of offences under IPC and types of complaints

Police not accepting complaints and not registering FIR, what are the other options

Maximum period of Police Detention. When bail should be granted. Bail after 90 days or 60 days

Registering FIR against police through complaint

Important Case Laws, Citations

Home / clat pg / IPC Notes- Culpable Homicide and Murder

Ipc notes- culpable homicide and murder.

Introduction

The Indian Penal Code is a comprehensive set of rules in India that govern criminal acts. Offences Affecting the Human Body are one of the principal categories of offences covered by the IPC. This section contains homicide, assault, and other violent crimes that endanger a person’s physical well-being. In this article, we will look at two provisions from the Indian Penal Code that fall under this category: Sections 299 and 300 .

Culpable Homicide under Section 299

Culpable Homicide is dealt with in Section 299 of the IPC . The word “culpable homicide” refers to the act of killing another human. According to the provision, culpable homicide is committed when the act that causes death is done with the purpose to cause death or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. It also encompasses circumstances when the act is committed with the purpose to inflict bodily harm that is likely to result in death, or with knowledge that such bodily harm is likely to result in death.

Elements of Culpable Homicide

When assessing culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC, three important criteria must be examined.

• To begin, the accused must have been responsible for the death of another person.
• Second, the accused must have had the purpose to kill or knowledge that the act is likely to kill.
• Finally, the act of causing death must have occurred without justification or excuse within the law.

A case of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code might be one in which a person strikes another person with a dangerous weapon, such as a knife, with the goal of inflicting death, and the victim dies as a consequence of the attack. In this situation, the perpetrator of the crime may face culpable murder charges under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. However, if the conduct was performed in self-defence, the act may not be termed culpable murder.

Murder under Section 300

Murder is dealt with in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code . Murder is one of the most serious offences under the IPC and is punished by life in prison or the death sentence. However, not all homicides are considered murder by the law. In some cases, a person may be charged with culpable homicide, which is a lower offence than murder.

Elements of Murder

Section 300 of the IPC states that a person is guilty of murder if the following factors are present:

• The act of causing death : The accused must have killed another person.
• The purpose to cause death : The accused must have had the intent to kill the victim. Alternatively, the accused must have known that their conduct were likely to result in the victim’s death.
• The act was committed with the knowledge that it would result in death : The accused must have been aware that their acts were likely to result in the victim’s death.

If all three factors are present, the offender might face murder charges.

If any of these factors is missing, the accused may not be convicted of murder but may be guilty of culpable homicide. For example, if a person kills another person but did not plan to kill them, they may be charged with culpable homicide but not murder. Similarly, if a person kills another person without understanding that their acts were likely to result in death, they may be guilty of culpable homicide but not murder.

A basic example of this principle is when someone gets into a fight with another person and hits them. The person collapses and smashes their head, killing them. If the individual who punched the victim did not mean to kill them and had no idea their actions would result in death, they may be guilty of culpable homicide but not murder.

Exceptions to Murder

Murder, which is considered the most terrible crime in Indian law, is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. There are certain exceptions to this rule, which implies that a person may not be charged with murder even though they caused the death of another person. Section 300 specifically mentions the following exceptions:

• Grave and Sudden Provocation : If a person kills another person in the heat of passion as a result of grave and sudden provocation, they may not be charged with murder. This exemption applies if the provocation is so severe and immediate that it deprives the individual of self-control and causes them to kill the other person.
• Exercise of Right to Private Defence : If a person kills another person while exercising their right to private defence, they may not be charged with murder. This exemption applies if the individual reasonably believes that they are facing death or serious bodily damage and that the only option to defend themselves is to kill the other person.
• Public servant acting in good faith : If a public worker kills another person while operating in good faith and carrying out their official responsibilities, they may not be charged with murder.
• Sudden Fight : If two people have a sudden fight and one of them kills the other in the heat of passion produced by the fight, they may not be charged with murder.
• Consent : If a person kills another person with their consent, they may not be charged with murder. This exemption, however, only applies if the permission was provided willingly and with full awareness of the nature and consequences of the act.

It is vital to remember that the courts closely interpret these exceptions, and the accused bears the burden of demonstrating them. If the prosecution can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of murder, these exceptions will not apply, and the accused will be found guilty.

Difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder

Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code distinguish between culpable homicide and murder. While both charges entail the taking of a human life, there are important distinctions between them.

Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide as causing the death of a person with the purpose to cause death or with knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death, but without any of the specified aggravating elements that would render the crime murder. These situations include, but are not limited to, employing poison or explosives to cause death, or causing death while performing an act punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Murder under section 300 of the IPC, on the other hand, requires causing the death of a person with the purpose to cause death or with knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death, as well as any of the particular aggravating circumstances listed in the section.

The existence or absence of explicit intent to cause death is one of the main distinctions between culpable homicide and murder. The intention to cause death may be present in culpable homicide, but it may also be absent, with the perpetrator having simply awareness that their act is likely to cause death. Murder always involves the purpose to cause death or the knowledge that such a conduct is likely to result in death.

Another key distinction between the two offences is the severity of the punishment. While both culpable homicide and murder are serious offences, murder carries a harsher penalty. Murder is penalised by life in prison or the death penalty, whilst culpable homicide is penalised by up to 10 years in jail, a fine, or both.

To summarise, the distinctions between culpable homicide under section 299 and murder under section 300 of the IPC are essentially determined by the existence or lack of intent to cause death, as well as the precise aggravating circumstances that raise the offence to murder. It is critical that legal experts and the general public grasp these distinctions in order to guarantee that justice is done in situations involving the loss of life.

Landmark Cases

The following are a few landmark cases on culpable homicide and murder which will help illustrate the differences between the two better.

The accused in Prasad Swanker v. Ranjit Kumar was charged with murder, but he maintained that he acted in self-defence to protect himself. The deceased was suspected of being engaged in a robbery, which strengthened his claim of self-defence. The court determined that the evidence gathered from the crime scene and the injuries received by the accused increased the likelihood that the plea of self-defence was true. As a consequence, the accused’s murder conviction was reversed and upheld by the court.

In the case of Subha Naik v. R , a constable killed someone on the orders of a higher authority. However, it was discovered that neither the constable nor his superiors thought that shooting on a specific group was required for public safety. As a result, the policeman was charged with murder because he failed to follow the directions of his superiors.

This implies that even if a person is obeying their superiors’ directions, they can still be charged with murder if it is shown that they did not act in line with the law or in the interest of public safety. Individuals must ensure that they are acting within the bounds of the law, even if they are acting on commands from superiors, in order to avoid being held legally accountable for their activities.

Important Questions on Murder and Culpable Homicide

• Distinguish between culpable homicide and murder in the light of Reg v. Govinda?
• When does culpable homicide not amount to murder? [U.P.C.J.2015]
• What do you understand by culpable homicide? When does culpable homicide amount to murder and what are its exceptions?
• An army Jawan ‘X’ who was away from his home for the last two years, requested his senior ‘Y’ for leave, which ‘Y’ refused. Annoyed at this, ‘X’ fired two shots at ‘Y’, one-shot hitting ‘Y’ beneath the knee of the right leg as a result of which he fell down. ‘X’ fired another shot, which hit ‘Y’ at the upper left arm. ‘Y’ died after ten days. Discuss the liability of ‘X’. [U.P.H.J.S. 2012]
• 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. Has A committed the offence of culpable homicide?

Check out MCQs on Culpable Homicide and Murder

Subscribe to our newsletter and get daily news & updates directly to your inbox!

Please provide a valid email address.

Join our WhatsApp Channel

Join our Telegram Group

The Legal Quotient

In Legal Matters, Legal Quotient Matters

Culpable Homicide (Ss. 299 and 304 IPC)

Adv Hemant More

Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Culpable Homicide

In a criminal case, the cardinal principle is that the accused is innocent till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The general burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution and it never shifts. Even in respect of the cases covered by Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is not absolved of its duty of discharging the burden. In this article, we shall discuss culpable homicide.

The word homicide has been derived from the Latin word ‘homo’ which means a man and ‘caedere’ which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing of a human being. The word “culpable” means a ‘blameworthy state of mind’. Thus culpable homicide refers to taking the life of another person, where the act has been done with criminal intent. Section 299 of IPC defines Culpable Homicide.

All cases of homicide are not culpable (punishable). Law distinguishes between lawful and unlawful homicide. For instance, killing in self-defence in pursuance of lawful authority or by reason of a mistake of fact is not culpable. Likewise, if death is caused by accident or misfortune or while doing an act in good faith and without any criminal intention for the benefit of the person killed, the man is excused from criminal responsibility for homicide.

Section 46 says “the word “death” denotes the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context”. Causing death must be of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least partially an infant under-delivery or just delivered.

Jabbar and his brothers went to Sanju’s house looking for Sanju. There they pushed Smt. Pangoli wife of Jamna, the brother of Sanju and kicked her on a side of her stomach.  As a result, Smt Panguli, who was pregnant, was taken ill and gave birth prematurely to a seven-month-old baby which died. The question before the court was that whether the seven-month unborn child can be considered a person or not. The Court held that the term “Person” will also include a child whether born or unborn. Even if the child is unborn and within the womb of the mother, it is capable of being spoken as a “person”, if its body is developed sufficiently to make it possible to call it a child.

Section 299 of IPC:

Culpable Homicide Bare Act Provisions: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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. Illustrations: 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. 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. 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. Explanations: 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. 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. 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.

Explanation to Attached Illustrations to Section 299:

Illustration 1:

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.

In this case, A had the intention to kill Z. A had knowledge that this act can kill Z. But falling in a pit is likely to cause death and hence the offence gets reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If there is a 100% chance that it would cause death, then it would have been murder.

Illustration 2:

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.

In this case, A had the intention to kill Z. A had knowledge that this act can kill Z. But fired bullet by B may or may not hit Z and thus it is likely to cause death and hence the offence gets reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If there is a 100% chance (if B is a sharpshooter) that it would cause death, then it would have been murder.

Illustration 3:

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.

In this case, the intention of A is to steal a fowl and his act is to fire at the fowl. It is not guilty of culpable homicide. If A would have knowledge that B is beyond the fowl and his intention was to kill B, then it would amount to murder because he is firing at B with the intention to kill b under the pretext of killing the fowl.

Explanation to Attached Explanations to Section 299:

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.

If the bodily injury so inflicted was not with such intention or knowledge as required in Sec 299 the offence is not culpable homicide. If the attacking person knew about the disorder, disease or bodily infirmity of the deceased person (whose death was certain) and by the attack, the attacker would have accelerated the death of the deceased. The attacker can be booked under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

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.

It simply means if death results from an injury voluntary caused, the person who causes that injury is deemed to have caused death, although the life of the victim might have been saved if proper treatment, provided that the treatment was given in good faith by a competent person.

The accused has attacked the deceased and the injuries inflicted on him by the accused caused his death. Now the defence of the accused is deceased after suffering injuries didn’t go to a proper medical practitioner and he didn’t get proper medical treatment. If he would have got proper medical attendance he would have been saved. This defence is untenable by virtue of this explanation.

If X caused simple injury to Z and Z subsequently died of septic meningitis which developed on account of the use of wrong remedies and neglect in treatment, such death cannot be said to have been caused by the bodily injury within the terms of this explanation.

InKumbhar Narsi Bechar vs The State of Gujarat, 1961, AIR 1962 Guj 77 case, the accused inflicted injuries to deceased named Mahendra such that to treat him some operation was performed. Due to the cumulative result of original injuries and subsequent operation must have accelerated death. The Court held that in order that a person should be held responsible for having caused the death, it is not necessary that his act should be the immediate cause of the death in the medical sense. the court also held that the appellant must be deemed to have caused the death of the injured Mahendra.

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.

The life of a child, when it remains in the womb, is part of a mother’s life, and not separate and distinct existence. But as soon as any part of the child has been brought forth from the womb, the child is regarded as a living human being. The clause “though the child may not have breathed‟ suggests that a child may be born alive, though it may not breath (respire), or it may respire so imperfectly that it may be difficult to obtain clear proof that respiration takes place. Causing death must be of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least partially an infant under-delivery or just delivered.

In order to hold a person liable under the impugned section, there must be causing of death of a human being as defined under Section 46 of the Code. The causing of death of a child (man or woman S. 10) in the mother‟s womb is not homicide as stated in this Explanation. But the person would not be set free. He would be punishable for causing miscarriage either under section 312 or 315 of the Code depending on the gravity of the injury.

More Examples of Culpable Homicides:

• Y is diagnosed with terminal illness and needs certain drugs to live from day to day. A confines him in a room and denies him his medication. As a result, Y dies. A is guilty of culpable homicide.
• G mows over a pedestrian deliberately. The pedestrian bleeds on the road and no one helps him and he dies as a result of G’s actions. G cannot take the defence that if the pedestrian had taken medical treatment at the right time, he would have lived.

Ingredients of Culpable Homicide:

• An act of a person which has caused a death of another person;
• the act causing death should have been with the intention of causing death; or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
• or with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.

The very first test to decide whether a particular act or omission would be covered by the definition of culpable homicide, is to verify whether the act done by the accused has caused the death of another person. The relevant consideration for such verification is to see the death is caused as a direct result of the act committed by the accused.

Section 32, I.P.C the word ‘act’ has been given a wider meaning in the Code in as much as it includes not only an act of commission, but illegal omissions as well and the word ‘illegal, is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for civil action (Sec.43). Therefore death caused by illegal omission will amount to a Culpable homicide. Death may be caused by a hundred and one means, such as by poisoning, drowning, striking, starving, beating and so on and so forth.

Death may also be caused by the effect of words such as by making some communication to another person which caused excitement which results in death. For example, A with the intention or knowledge aforesaid gives B his choice whether B will kill himself, or suffer lingering torture; B kills himself by taking poison. A would be liable for culpable homicide.

The act should be of such a nature that it would put to peril someone’s life or damage someone’s life to such an extent that the person would die. For instance, stabbing a person in vital organs, shooting someone at point-blank range, or administering poison include instances that would constitute culpable homicide. the term ‘act’ also includes ‘illegal omissions;

The section says causing death by doing an act, so given the special circumstances certain acts which may not involve an extreme degree of violence but may be sufficient to cause someone’s death. For example: starving someone may not require violence in the normal usage of the term, but may cause a person’s death.

In order to hold a person liable under the impugned section, there must be causing of death of a human being as defined under Section 46 of the Code. Causing of death must be of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least partially an infant under delivery or just delivered.

In Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 2604 case , Multiple injuries were caused to the victim, who died after a fortnight. Medical reports gave a cause of death as a short supply of blood to kidneys as a result of multiple injuries on the victim. The court held that the death was caused on account of injuries to the victim inflicted by the accused. Hence the accused is responsible for the death of the victim.

In Joginder singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1876 case, the deceased Rupinder Singh had teased the sister of the accused. In retaliation, the two accused went to Rupinder’s house and shouted that they had come to take away the sister of Rupinder Sigh. In the meantime, the cousins of Rupinder Singh intervened. One of them was given a blow on the neck by the accused. Meanwhile, Rupinder Singh started running towards the field. The accused started chasing him and Rupinder Singh jumped into a well. As a result of this, he sustained head injuries, which made him loose consciousness and thereafter he died due to drowning. The Supreme Court held that the accused were 15 to 20 feet from Rupinder Singh, when he jumped into the well. There was no evidence to show that the accused drove Rupinder Singh into the well or that they left him no option but to jump into the well. Under these circumstances, it was held that the accused could have caused the death of Rupinder Singh, and hence they were entitled to be acquitted of the charge of murder. The Court further observed that the connection between the act and the death caused by the act must be direct and distinct; and though not immediate it must not be too remote.

In Radha Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989) 1 Crimes 721 case, the husband having suspected the faithfulness of his wife has deliberately thrown a grinding stone on her head when she was asleep resulting in her death. The accused was punished under charges of murder under Section 302.

In Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 CrLJ 1773 (Mad) case, the accused gave a single blow with the wooden log when he was extremely angry to the victim and caused the death of the victim. The Court held that it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and conviction of the accused was altered from Section 302 into Section 304.

To attract the provisions of this Section it suffices if the death of a human being is caused whether the person was intended to be killed or not. For instance, B with the intention of killing A in order to obtain the insured amount gave him some sweets mixed with poison. The intended victim ate some of the sweets and threw the rest away which were picked up by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. It was held that B is liable for the murder of the children though he intended to kill only A.

The act must be committed, with the intention of causing death. Thus where you push someone for a joke and the person falls on his head has a brain injury and dies, there was no intention of causing death but when you pushed the person deliberately with the idea that the person falls and dies, in that case, the act is with the intention of causing death. To prove intention in acts where there is bodily injury is likely to cause death. The act has to be can be of two types:

• Firstly, where bodily injury itself is done in a fashion which cause death. For example bludgeoning someone on the head repeatedly with a blunt instrument.
• Secondly, in situation where there are injuries and there are investigating events between the injuries and the death provided the delay is not so blatant, one needs to prove that injuries were administered with the intention of causing death.

The word ‘intention’ in clause (a) to Section 299, of the Code has been used in its ordinary sense, i.e., a volitional (own will) act done without being able to foresee the consequence with certitude.

The connection between the ‘act’ and the death caused thereby must be direct and distinct, and though not immediate it must not be too remote. If the nature of the connection between the act and the death is in itself obscure (uncertain), or if it is obscured by the action of concurrent causes, or if the connection is broken by the intervention of subsequent causes, or if the interval of time between death and the act is too long, the above condition is not fulfilled.

The words “likely to” indicates probability. It is the degree of probability of death which determines whether the culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or of the lowest degree.

Where a constable fired five shots in succession at another constable resulting in his death, it was held that it would be native to suggest that he had neither intention to kill nor any knowledge that injuries sufficient to kill in the ordinary course of nature would not follow. His acts squarely fell in clauses 2,3 and 4 of Sec.300, I.P.C i.e., Culpable Homicide amounting to murder.

In Laxman Case 1974 CrLJ 1271 (SC) case, Accused inflicted 34 injuries with an axe and stick on the victim. Some of the injuries damaged the kidneys and lungs of the victim which eventually lead to the death of the victim. The number of injuries indicates that the accused was making sure that the victim should die at any cost. Here there is no probability of inflicting injuries but to kill the victim. It is case of murder.

In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1876 case, it has been held that the connection between the act and the death caused by the act must be direct and distinct; and though not immediate it must not be too remote. Where person jumped into a well in order to save himself from two chasing persons and dies, the death of the victim was not caused by an act of chasing persons with intention or knowledge specified in Sec. 299 With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.

In Ramakoteswar Rao v. State of A.P., 1986 CrLJ 680 A.P. case, a sudden quarrel arose between the deceased and accused. The deceased threatened the accused with dire consequences. The accused stabbed the deceased with a knife. The Court held that the offence would come under Section 299 and convicted the accused under Section 304 part-1.

“Knowledge‟ is a strong word and imports certainty and not merely a probability. Here knowledge refers to the personal knowledge of the person who does the act. Knowledge is different from intention to the extent that where a person may not have the intention to commit an act which kills, he knows that the act which he commits will take someone’s life or is likely to take someone’s life will be considered having the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.

A doctor uses an infected syringe knowingly on a patient thereby infecting him with a terminal disease. The act by itself will not cause death, but the doctor has knowledge that his actions will lead to someone’s death.

If the death is caused under circumstances specified under Section 80, the person causing the death will be exonerated under that Section. But, if it is caused in doing an unlawful act, the question arises whether he should be punished for causing it. The Code says that when a person engaged in the commission of an offence, without any addition on account of such accidental death. The offence of Culpable Homicide supposes an intention, or knowledge of the likelihood of causing death. In the absence of such intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be grievous hurt or a simple hurt.

It is only where death is attributed to an injury which the offender did not know would endanger life would be likely to cause death and which in normal conditions would not do so notwithstanding death being caused, that the offence will not be Culpable Homicide but grievous or simple hurt. Every such case depends upon the existence of abnormal conditions unknown to the person who inflicts injury. Once it is established that an act was a deliberate act and not the result of accident or rashness or negligence, it is obvious that the offence would be culpable homicide.

In Kesar Singh v State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753 case, the Court said that knowledge denotes a bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which the human mind might itself remain supine and inactive whereas intention connotes a conscious state in which mental faculties are roused into activity and summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and specified end which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself.

In Shuklal v. State, 1953 CrLJ 1815 Punj case, the accused stabbed the deceased with a blunt sided weapon. There were 17 injuries on the body of the victim and all were simple in nature. The Punjab High Court held that the case fell under the third alternative mentioned in Section 299 i.e. “doing an act ….. with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death”. The Court convicted the accused under Section 304 part-2.

In State of Kerala v. Mani, 1992 CrLJ 1682 Ker case, the accused pushed the victim in deep water. The Court held that the act of the accused fell under the third alternative mentioned in Section 299 i.e. “doing an act ….. with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death”. The Court convicted the accused under Section 304 part-2.

In Babu v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 CrLJ 378 Bom case, the accused and deceased were cousins and were residing in the houses, side by side. In a quarrel accused assaulted the deceased and gave a stick blow on the head of the deceased. On account of this injury, the death of the deceased took place. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of IPC. The divisional board of Bombay High Court converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 part-2 opining that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased or to cause such bodily injury as likely to cause death. However, he knew that the tick blow would cause such bodily injury or as was likely to cause death.

In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2020 case, During celebratory gunfire the accused held the gun towards the roof of the house unfortunately the bullets got deflected and 5 people were hurt and 2 of them succumbed to their injuries. The accused pleaded not guilty as he had no intention to cause anyone’s death. The court noticed that the accused was carrying a loaded gun in public and he did not take proper care of his surroundings. He must’ve had an idea that the pellets could deflect and hurt someone. The court held him guilty. The offense amounted to culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC, punishable under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC.

Kinds of Culpable Homicides:

Culpable homicide is of two kinds:

• Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
• Culpable homicide amounting to murder

Section 299 cannot be taken to be the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Actually culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not defined in the code but it is defined as the part of Section 300.

In  Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa, 1997 CriLJ 2204 case, the Court observed that Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is the genus and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is the species. Hence, there are no independent sections regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder it is the part of Section 300 of IPC which defines Murder. 

What is to be Proved?

The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Unless one of the mental states mentioned in ingredient is present, an act causing death cannot amount to Culpable Homicide.

Example: A constable who had loaded but defective gun with him wanted to arrest an accused who was going on a bullock cart by climbing on the cart and there was a scuffle between him and the accused and in course of which the gun went off and killed the constable, it was held that accused could not be held guilty of Culpable Homicide (S. 80).

Punishment for Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder (Section 299 IPC):

For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide.

• The first is, what may be called, ‘culpable homicide of the first degree’. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as ‘murder’.
• The second may be termed as ‘culpable homicide of the second degree’. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304.
• Then, there is ‘culpable homicide of the third degree’. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304

Section 304 of IPC:

Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 299 IPC).

Section 304 part-1 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever causes death with intention or causes such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused because of the act, shall be liable for life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

Section 304 part-2 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever causes death without the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or doesn’t have the knowledge that his act could cause death shall be sentenced to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Conclusion:

Whoever causes death o by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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. According to the Indian Penal Code, there are two types of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Sec 299 IPC), Culpable homicide amounting to murder. (Sec 300 IPC). Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec 299) is given under Section 304 which is either imprisonment for 10 years or fine or both. It can extend to life imprisonment if there was intention present. 

For More Articles on Indian Penal Code Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here

Share this:

• Administrative Law
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
• Christian Laws
• Code of Criminal Procedure
• Collective Bargaining
• Collective Violence
• Companies Act
• Constitutional Law
• Criminal Jurisprudence
• Criminology
• Environmental Laws
• Family Laws
• Forensic Science
• Human Rights
• Indian Evidence Act
• Indian Partnership Act
• Indian Penal Code
• Indian Succession Act
• Industrial Disputes Act
• Industrial Relations Code
• Judicial Process
• Jurisprudence
• Juvenile Justice Act
• Labour Laws
• Law and Society
• MRTU and PULP Act
• Research Methodology
• Sale of goods Act
• Teaching Aptitude
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022

"A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING"

All You Need to Know About Culpable Homicide – Section 299, IPC

Table of Contents

Introduction

The word ‘homicide’ has been derived from the Latin terms homi (man) and cido (cut). The word ‘homicide’ literal meaning is “the killing of a human being by another human being”.  

Section – 299 – Culpable homicide

Essential ingredients , ‘causing death’ : tests for determining, intention or knowledge, knowledge or mens rea, act of killing a person not intended to be killed, proof of intention, punishment for culpable homicide, proposals for reform  , related posts, bois locker room, dowry death section 304b: detailed overview, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Contemporary Legal Issue
• Criminal Law

Indian Penal Code (IPC) detailed Notes and Study Material

• November 8, 2020

Present post is a detailed notes on Indian Penal Code (IPC). This notes on IPC is detailed and backed by case laws.

Table of Contents

Nature of Crime and Definition of Crime

Definition of crime.

Crime is an act or omission prohibited by law. Crime is an act which is both forbidden by the law and is revolting to the moral sentiments of the society.

According to Kenny, “ crimes are wrongs whose sanction is positive and in no way remissible by any private person, but remissible by state alone, if remissible at all .”

Kenny’s definition means that punishment of wrongful deeds of people by the state is morally good. However, punishment must be inflicted by the state alone and not by a private vigilante or even by the victim to the offender.

Content of crime changes over the period of time.

Once upon a time heresy or blasphemy used to be a crime punishable by burning the blasphemer at the scaffold. In some states, people of alternate religious beliefs used to be traumatized by the majoritarian theocratic state. But now even theocratic states do not punish persons of alternate religious beliefs.

Polygyny (man having more than one wife) was not an offence among Hindus till 1955. However with the passing of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – polygamy in any form was completely outlawed among Hindus. Therefore, content of crime changes with the evolution of time.

Crime is not a civil or a moral wrong

Crime is basically disobedience of penal law. For example, a gambler disobeys the prohibition against gambling. He is liable to be punished. The consequence of violation of law is sufferance of punishment by the offender. The object of criminal law is penal retribution .

Crimes are not civil wrongs. In a civil wrong, the defendant is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff. This is because the object of civil law is to restore the plaintiff to his/her original position by compensating him/her. The object of civil law is restorative justice.

Moral wrongs are not punishable. Moral wrongs do not create a claim for compensation. There is no liability for a person who commits a moral wrong. For example, disobedience of parents is a moral wrong. The child is not liable for punishment or liable for paying compensation to his/her parents for disobeying them.

Burden of proof in crimes

The burden of proving a crime is on the prosecution . The prosecution must prove the g uilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt . If any doubt is present in the mind of the court, then the court shall have to acquit the accused.

In civil litigation however the burden of proof is different than in criminal litigation. In civil litigation, one must prove the case on preponderance of probabilities. This is an easier burden of proof than in criminal litigation.

The burden of proving crime is more onerous and difficult to discharge in criminal litigation and all benefit of any doubt present in the mind of the court is reaped by the accused.

The task of proving the guilt of accused is performed by the prosecution. The task of proving the innocence of the accused is performed by the defense. The state is the prosecutor in the criminal trial. The state fights the case on behalf of the victim and the society at large. Criminal trials are adversarial in nature. Two adversaries show the guilt and innocence of the accused person to the court upon which the court gives a decision.

Elements of Crime

The elements of crime are described as follows:

The first element of crime is the human being. Only human beings are liable for their criminal acts. Animals or plants are not liable under the Indian Penal Code for causing harm to humans or

each other. A dog biting an 8-year-old boy is not liable for causing simple hurt. Only humans are liable under the Indian Penal Code.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

This latin maxim constitutes the second element of crime. It includes the mental element and the physical element. The mental element is called Mens Rea . The physical element is called actus reus . Mens rea means guilty mind . Actus reus means guilty act. The literal translation of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is that act is not guilty and not liable to be punished unless it was performed with a guilty mind. The act is not guilty unless mind is also guilty.

The Indian Penal Code only punishes people who are capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

Mens rea means guilty mind. Almost all crimes have some mental element. Examples of mens rea include intent, knowledge, rashness, recklessness, reason to believe, fraudulent, dishonest, corruptly, allowing, omitting, maliciously, deliberately, voluntarily etc.

The expression mens rea is nowhere used in the IPC. However essence of mens rea is found through expressions like intent, knowledge and reason to believe etc.

Actus reus means guilty act. It consists of physical actions which are prohibited by law. Examples of actus reus include theft, extortion, murder, cheating, bribery, forgery, hurt, assault, rioting, cruelty, bigamy etc.

Legal obligation to act in a particular way or to abstain from certain conduct

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 imposes legal obligations to act in a particular way or abstain from certain conduct. The Indian Penal Code punishes wrongful conduct. It punishes conduct which is harmful such as murder, or immoral such as bigamy. The offenders are punished for any violation of penal law.

Injury to human being or society at large

Conduct which is harmful to human beings such as hurt or cruelty to wife is punished by the penal law. Conduct which is harmful to society at large such as drug trafficking and dowry is also punished by special penal laws like Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Injury to human being is defined in Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code. Injury means injury to mind, body, reputation or property. Cruelty is an example of injury to mind; simple hurt is an example of injury to body; defamation is an example of injury to reputation; and mischief is an example of injury to property.

Kinds of Mens Rea

Intention means desired objective or desire to achieve certain purpose. Humans are able to desire things which they consider are beneficial for them. This human forseeability and desire is sometimes deleterious for other human beings or the society at large.

The Indian Penal Code deals with bad or guilty intentions of human beings. Intention in the IPC is reflected by terms such as intentionally, voluntarily, willfully or deliberately. For example, Section 298 of the IPC deals with deliberate intent to wound religious sentiments.

Transferred Intention

A intends to murder X. For achieving this objective A mixes poison in X’s food and places it on X’s table. However, Y feeling unusually hungry raids X’s lunch and dies. A is liable for Y’s murder even though he did not intend it. This is known as transferred intention and is mentioned in Section 301 of the IPC.

Knowledge is the awareness of consequences of any act or omission. For instance, a bus driver has knowledge that if he doesn’t keep his eyes on the road while driving, an accident may ensue

even if he doesn’t intend it. Here the bus driver has knowledge, but may have no intention to commit an accident.

Negligence is of two kinds – advertent negligence and inadvertent negligence .

Advertent negligence or rashness or recklessness or willful negligence

Advertent negligence is also known as negligence where risk is foreseen yet the risk is undertaken foolishly by thinking no bad consequence shall result. This is common in rash driving wherein the driver in a hurry knows that he is not driving in a proper manner yet takes the risk thinking no bad consequence will result. If an accident ensues the driver is liable for advertent negligence or rashness or reckless. This is also known as willful negligence. The expression advertent means avoidable. The persons knows he can avoid this conduct be refraining from it, yet he goes along to bear the risk in a devil may care attitude. This is known as advertent negligence.

Inadvertent negligence means absence of duty to take care and due precaution. A doctor who leaves the scissors inside the patient’s wound is liable for simple negligence because he did not have knowledge of them being inside when he sew the wound. The doctor thus commits inadvertent or simple negligence because he did not have opportunity to prevent it lest by due care and caution which he failed to do.

Motive is not mens rea. Motive prompts a man to form an intention. Motive is not an essential element of crime. Motive however is relevant under the Evidence Act. Motive helps in indicating intention. While investigating, the police use motive to find out who must have committed the crime or who has the best reason to commit the crime. Motive helps the investigating agencies to narrow down on the accused. Motive is not the same as intention. Motive and intention are quite different from each other even though they appear to be similar.

For example, when one feels hungry the motive is to satisfy hunger by eating. Whereas intention may be to steal bread if one doesn’t have money to pay for it. This is the difference between motive and intention.

General Exceptions

According to Section 6, IPC, every offence is subject to General Exceptions though these exceptions are not repeated in such penal provisions. This implies that General Exceptions have to be read with every offence irrespective of their absence from the said penal provision.

Mistake of Fact

Mistake of fact is excusable. Mistake of law is inexcusable. Mistake of fact is a bonafide mistake in good faith along with a belief that you are also justified by law to do something. S. 79 of the IPC says that an act done by a person justified, or who believes under a mistake of fact that he is justified by the law is no offence.

For instance, in what appears to be a bank robbery, the good Samaritan in good faith with the belief that he is about to foil an illegal act of bank robbery takes the law in his hands and stabs a supposed bank robber. Later, it turns out that the victim of the stabbing was a movie actor shooting for a scene of bank robbery. Here the good Samaritan shall not be held liable for the stabbing as he acted in good faith under mistake of fact.

State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa

A master and his servant (Ram Bahadur) were crossing the jungle from the village. There was a reputation for ghosts in the jungle. Ram Bahadur himself was a believer in ghosts. Ram Bahadur was carrying his Nepali knife called Khukri. Ram Bahadur saw a strange physical occurrence known as will-o’-wisp, which was a strange green light flickering at a distance. There were two women collecting flowers near the will-o’-wisp and Ram Bahadur under a bonafide honest belief that these women were ghosts murdered one woman and grievously wounded the other. Ram Bahadur Thapa was acquitted of all charges and was given the benefit of Section 79 IPC – Mistake of Fact because he acted in good faith under a mistake of fact.

State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik

A and B were neighbours on bad terms. A’s cow would routinely graze on B’s fields, and they would have verbal arguments. One day, A again entered B’s fields to retrieve his grazing cow. B was hiding behind a well with a heavy stick. As soon as A entered, B gave a heavy blow on A’s head due to which A died. Here B was not acting under a mistake of fact as he had reason to believe it was A again retrieving his grazing cow from B’s property. B was therefore not acting in good faith. Therefore B was denied benefit of mistake of fact.

Involuntary Intoxication

If at the time of the commission of the act, by reason of intoxication, the person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, because of an intoxicating substance administered to him, without his knowledge or, against his will, the person shall not be held liable because of S. 85 of the IPC.

Basdev v. State of P.E.P.S.U.

Basdev was in the army. During holidays he went to a wedding in Punjab. Everybody drank alcohol voluntarily in the village on the solemn occasion of marriage. During the wedding, Basdev asked a boy to vacate a chair as he wanted to sit down. On the boy’s refusal to comply, Basdev in an inebriated condition pulled out his service revolver and shot the boy dead. Basdev was held guilty of murder since the general exception of involuntary intoxication u/s. 85 did not apply as Basdev voluntarily drank alcohol. Basdev was thereby punished of murder u.s/302 r.w. S. 86.

Section 84 of the IPC provides that the act of a person of unsound mind is no offence, if at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind he is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that which is wrong or contrary to law.

Legal insanity is different from medical insanity . Since, unsoundness must be during the commission of the offence. And, the offender should not know the nature of the act, or that it is morally wrong or contrary to law.

Queen Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah

Kader Shah lost his house and property in a fire and received a mental shock. For 2 months he had sharp pain in his head and could not go to work. One day for no apparent reason, he strangulated an 8 year old boy who was his neighbour’s son. After the boy had died, Kader picked up the corpse and hid it in a deserted house. He pleaded unsoundness of mind. According to the court, Kader was not entitled to the benefit of the general exception u/s. 84 since he knew what he did was wrong as he took due pains to hide the body in a deserted house so that it is not discovered by anyone soon.

Lakshmi v. The State

Lakshmi and Chheddi were brothers. Lakshmi used to take drugs and wine and used to beat his wife and mother. Unempolyed as he was, he used to ask Chheddi for money. One day Chheddi refused and scolded and reprimanded his brother for his bad habits. Lakshmi ran away for one month, and came back one day with a butcher’s knife and murdered Chheddi. Chheddi’s wife saw Lakshmi hurriedly running away after murdering his brother from their house. Lakshmi was held liable for murder and not allowed the benefit of S. 84 unsoundness of mind because

Lakshmi knew what he did was wrong as he ran away immediately after committing the act to avoid getting caught. Therefore, Lakshmi was not legally insane.

Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

Shrikant, a paranoid schizophrenic had hereditarily acquired schizophrenia from his ancestors. He was treated for 2 years in the hospital but the mental condition would recur. Preceding the crime, Shrikant had been taken to the hospital 25 times within 1 month. On the day of the incident, Shrikant hit his wife on the head with a grinding stone for no apparent reason. She died of severe blood loss due to brain hemorrhage. Shrikant did not even try to escape. He was held entitled to benefit of S. 84 unsoundness of mind as he was unsound at the time of the incident.

Private Defense

According to S. 96, things done while exercising the right of private defence are not an offence.

According to S. 97, everybody has a right of private defence of his own body and property, and others’ body and property. S. 99 of the IPC puts certain reasonable restrictions on the right of private defence when this right is exercised against a public servant duly discharging his lawful duties. S. 99 also casts a duty on the defender not to inflict more harm than necessary on the assailant meaning thereby that the defender cannot assume the role of the assailant by exceeding his right of private defence. Also u/s. 99 there is no right of private defence is there is time to have recourse to public authorities.

S. 100 of the IPC, provides that subject to restriction under S. 99, the right of private defence extends even to the causing of death or any harm to the assailant if; there is reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, unnatural intercourse, kidnapping/abduction, wrongful confinement or acid attack.

According to S. 101, if the act of the assailant does not fall under various description of offences under Section 100 then the defender can in no case while exercising the right of private defence cause the death of the assailant.

According to S. 102, the right of private defence commences on reasonable apprehension of danger, or arises from attempt or threat even if the act be not yet committed, and it continues till the apprehension or threat of danger is there.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Swarup

Gangaram lost the auction of Tehbazari of a vegetable market to the victim, Munimji. When Gangaram visited the market, Munimji told Gangaram, “ You won’t get vegetables from here anymore” and got him pushed out of the market by his minions.

An hour later, Gangaram returned with his 3 sons to the market. His eldest son Ram Swarup was armed with a rifle, while Gangaram carried a dagger. Gangaram’s other two sons were carrying heavy lathis. Gangaram said to Munimji, “ You claim to be the Thekedar of this market? I will show you how Thekedari is done over here!” and all of them proceeded towards Munimji.

Munimji tried to run inside to his room but was shot point blank by Ram Swarup. In the court, Ram Swarup’s plea of right of private defence u/s. 100 “Firstly” was rejected because Ram was under no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. He was therefore convicted of murder.

James Martin v. State of Kerala

James Martin had a bread-making factory in Kerala. The opposition party in Kerala had organized a state bandh to protest against the policies of the ruling government. Political workers of the opposition part y were going around telling people to abstain from work to make the bandh a success. When they arrived at James Martin’s factory they scolded James Martin’s servant and pushed him and ordered to close down the factory. When James refused, the goons started pelting stones. James Martin at the direction of his father whipped out his rifle and shot dead Basheer, a political worker. James Martin was held not liable as he was acting within his right of private defence u/s. 101 and 103 of the Indian Penal Code as he was under a reasonable

apprehension of grievous hurt and mischief by fire to his property as the bandh activists were carrying explosives and grenades.

Group Liability

Sections 34 and 149 are the relevant provisions of group liability in the Indian Penal Code. Section 34 defines common intention , whereas 149 defines the liability of a group acting in the prosecution of a common object. Common intention means the same intention, whereas common object means similar intention towards achieving an objective. Under the concept of group liability, all the members of the group are equally liable even if the act be committed by one person alone.

Mahbub Shah v. Emperor

X and Y had a dispute and later on an altercation. X called out to his sons, Mahbub and Z who were inside the house, and who brought guns along with them. Z fired the fatal shot to Y, whereas Mahbub Shah fired the shot which had only injured Y’s leg. The issue was whether Mahbub is liable for murder as Z fired the fatal shot and had absconded never to be found. U/s. 34 of the IPC, the provision requires a criminal act, atleast 2 persons and evidence of common intention to prosecute Mahbub u/s. 34/302. Here as no evidence was given of a premeditated concert between Z and Mahbub, only Z could be held liable and not Mahbub for the murder. Accordingly, Mahbub was convicted of grievous hurt, but acquitted of the charge of murder since he did not possess the common intention to kill Y.

Attempt is the third or the penultimate stage of a criminal offence. The stages of criminal offences are 1) intention, 2) preparation, 3) Attempt, and 4) Forbidden Consequence prohibited by law. Attempt is generally punishable under Section 511 of the IPC. Whereas specific sections such as 307, 308 and 309 specifically cast the liability of attempt to commit murder, attempt to commit culpable homicide and attempt to commit suicide.

Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor

Asgarali was a married man with a wife and two children. He was having an affair with a neighbor woman who was a divorcee. Asgarali promised marriage to her and she agreed to have sexual relations with him. After a few months she became pregnant with Asgarali;s child. Asgarali became increasingly nervous and requested the woman to abort the child, but she refused and asked him to come good on his promise of marriage. Asgarali went to medical quack

and purchased Copper Sulphate tablets for aborting the child. The next day he asked her to ingest the Copper Sulphate tablets but she refused. Opon which Asgarali held her throat and made her ingest a few tablets. The issue arose whether Asgarali had attempted to cause miscarriage u/s. 312/511 of the IPC. The Doctors informed the court that Copper Sulphate cannot cause an abortion. Attempt takes place when the accused does everything from his owbn side, yet fails due to some extraneous reason in the commission of an offence. Here, as Copper Sulphate is harmless, the accused cannot be held liable for attempting to commit miscarriage as such miscarriage was impossible. The accused was therefore acquitted.

Queen v. Paterson

H and W were husband and wife respectively. H wanted to marry a second time with X. When the wife, W found about the wedding cards of her husband H’s, marriage with X, she prosecuted her husband of attempt to commit bigamy i.e. u/s. 494/511. According to the court, the act of getting wedding cards published was only preparation and not attempt. Preparation for marriage is not punishable. The husband was acquitted.

Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar

Abhayanand Mishra wanted to take admission in Patna University. However he did not have the requisite Class XIIth qualifications. Abhayanand deposited forged marksheets to Patna University upon which Admit Card for an entrance test was dispatched to him. However, the University clerk discovered his fraud and informed the police. Abhayanand was prosecuted under attempt to cheat i.e. u/s. 420/511 of the IPC. The court decided that Abhayanand had indeed attempted cheating and it was not merely a preparation for cheating since he had done everything from his own side to cheat the University. He had thus crossed over from preparation to attempt. He was held guilty of attempt to cheat.

Om Prakash v. State of Punjab

Bimla married om Prakash in the year 1951. They used to fight a lot and Bimla left her husband. However, on assurance of Om’s parents she returned back to her marital home. When she returned to her marital home, the husband acted very sweetly for a few days but after some time became viciously abusive towards her. He locked her up in the bathroom for days without giving her any food for weeks.

One day Bimla found the door unlocked and escaped and went to a nearby hospital. The Doctor wrote down that she was so emaciated that her cheeks were hollow, she had no strength or muscles left, her bones were protruding and she was looking like a dead body. The issue arose was whether the husband had attempted to murder his wife.

According to the court, the accused Om Prakash did everything in his own capacity to bring about Bimla’s death by starving her, and she did not die because of an extraneous circumstance, wherein she escaped death by sheer luck. S. 307 Illustration (d) provides that attempt to murder need not be the penultimate act. Therefore, Om Prakash was held liable for attempt to murder u/s. 307 of the IPC.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE & MURDER

Homicide is that act of killing a human being. The distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder is such that Culpable Homicide is the genus whereas Murder is the specie. The relation can be expressed in the following sentence, “all Murder is Culpable Homicide, but all Culpable Homicide is not Murder.”

According to S. 299, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or by causing an intentional bodily injury likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by the act to cause death commits culpable homicide.

Culpable Homicide means the blame for the death of a human being is cast upon the one responsible for the death.

Murder is an aggravated form of Culpable Homicide.

According to S. 300 all culpable homicide is murder, except in cases of special exceptions when:

• The act is done with the intention of causing death, or
• The act is done with the intention to cause bodily injury which the offender knows is likely to cause death, or
• The act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
• With the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous, it must in all probability will cause death, or bodily injury likely to cause death, without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death.

Palani Goundan case

Palani Goundan had an argument with his wife during which he did the following acts:

• Hit her on the head with a stick due to which she fainted. He had no intention to kill her. But he presumed she had died since she became unresponsive. ( No Mens rea + No  Actus reus )
• After thinking his wife has died (although she had only fainted), Palani, with the purpose of hiding his culpability hung her from the fan to show her eventual death as suicide. ( No Mens Rea + Actus Reus)

The decision of the court was that Palani is not liable for Murder. He had never had the intention to kill his wife. Actus reus was there, but mens rea was absent. Therefore as intention to kill was missing, and knowledge of whether she was dead was absent – Palani was acquitted of Murder but was convicted for grievous hurt (S. 320/325) and Destruction of Evidence (S. 201).

In re Thavamani          

Two gardeners while working noticed the landlady wearing a gold necklace. They planned to kill her immediately and steal her chain. The incident comprised of two acts:

• Hit woman on the head whereby she fainted ( Mens Rea + No Actus Reus)
• Thinking she is dead, they with a purpose of hiding her body threw her in the well, whereby she drowned and eventually died. (No Mens Rea + Actus Reus )

They were convicted of murder because the 1 st act supplied the Mens Rea, while the 2 nd act supplied the actus reus. Moreover, the two acts were so closely connected that mens rea and actus reus are said to present concomitantly. Thus, they were convicted for murder.

Emperor case

Mushnooru called Appalla, whom he owed some money to his relative’s house. Mushnooru’s intention was to murder the creditor – Appalla by poisoning him. Mushnooru prepared a Halwa with a cocktail of poisonous arsenic and mercury. It was served on the table, but Appalla did not like it after tasting it and threw it away. After a few minutes the relative’s daughter and daughter’s friend ate the halwa and died. On the other hand, Appalla became very ill but survived.

The court held Mushnooru liable for murder on the basis of S. 301 i.e. transfer of intention even though Mushnooru had no intention to kill the two little girls, however his intention to kill Appalla was transferred to the girls and he was convicted of murder.

Rawalpenta Venkalu case

Five people wanted to kill Moinuddin, so they set fire to his hut in which he was fast asleep. To make sure that Moinuddin dies, they also carefully bolted the door from outside thus locking him up. Moinuddin’s three employees tried to save him, but the Five people overpowered them and did not let them unbolt the door.

The court convicted the accused as all of them had the common intention to kill the victim as they locked the door from outside and actively prevented people from unbolting it. There were thus convicted of murder.

Kapur Singh case

Bachan Singh caused a severe injury to Pritam Singh which caused the amputation of his leg. From that day forth, Pritam Singh’s father Kapur Singh held a grudge against Bachan Singh and Bachan’s father – the eventual victim. One day, Kapur Singh saw Bachan’s father and alongwith his associate who held the victim, inflicted as many as 18 injuries on the arms and legs of the victim with a gandasa (butcher’s knife) with the intention to cause permanent amputation of both his arms and legs. Unfortunately, the victim died.

As there was no intention to kill, Kapur Singh was acquitted of murder under s. 301 clause (1). Kapur Singh was also acquitted of 300 clause (3) as the bodily injuries were not sufficient to cause death since the accused was very careful about inflicting injuries solely for the purpose of amputation.

Kapur Singh was convicted of Culpable Homicide under s. 299 (b) due to Explanation 2 of S. 299 which provides that when death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes the bodily injury is deemed to have cause the death within the meaning of this section. Thus, the accused Kapur Singh was punished under S. 304 Part I.

State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam

The accused gave a knife blow on the chest of the victim who died instantly. The accused said he did not intend to kill the victim. However, the Medico Legal Certificate said that the blow was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to bring about the death.

The accused was convicted of murder under section 300 (3) as he intentionally committed a bodily injury + the bodily injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia

Dhirajia’s husband used to beat her up regularly. The wife wanted to go to her parent’s house for sometime, however the husband would not let her. At night, when husband woke up, the wife and his 6 month old baby were not there. He immediately realized that his wife must have gone to her parent’s house. He ran and caught up with his wife. The wife on seeing the fast approaching husband panicked as she was scared of him and jumped into the well with their baby. The baby died, whereas Dhirajia survived.

The court acquitted Dhirajia of murder as under 300 (4), Dhirajia had a justifiable excuse to jump in the well to escape her abusive husband. She was therefore entitled to undertake the risk of jumping in the well to escape from her abusive husband. However, Dhirajia was convicted of culpable homicide under 299 (c) since she had knowledge that she was about to cause the death of her baby and because 299 (c) does not provide for any excuse from liability unlike 300 (4).

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO MURDER

The law is based on the principle of reason. Criminal law holds only reasonable and sane men responsible for their crimes. The law takes a lenient view of spur of the moment murders and

punshes them only as culpable homicide. The special exceptions to murder reduce the liability of one responsible for murder to that only of culpable homicide.

According to Exception 1 of S. 300, culpable homicide is not murder when due to the deprivation of the power of self control and under grave and sudden provocation, a person causes death of the person who gives the provocation, or causes the death of any other person by mistake or ccident.

K.M. Nanavati case

Nanavati was a naval officer who had a wife called Sylvia and 3 children. Nanavati used to be away for 6 months in a year on the ship. In his absence, the wife started an affair with a businessman called Prem Ahuja. When nanavati came home, the wife informed him of her love for Prem Ahuja and that she wanted to marry him. Nanavati was very upset but he calmed down and took his wife and children to a movie theatre. On the pretext of some work, he took their leave and went to the cantonment stores and got a revolver + 6 bullets issued in his name. From thereon he went to Prem Ahuja’s house where he abused Prem Ahuja,“ You filthy ****, when I die will you marry my wife and look after my children!”?

To this, Prem replied, “why should I marry everyone I sleep with?”. At this moment Nanavati took out his pistol and shot Prem Ahuja dead. According to the court, Nanavati was not entitled to the benefit of grave and sudden provocation since he had about 3 hours to cool down his anger therefore it was not sudden anymore as he had regained his composure as evinced by his act of taking his family for a movie.

Babu Lal v. state

Babu Lal saw his wife sleeping with her lover. Babulal’s wife promised to never to meet her lover again. On this promise, they changed city and moved to a new house. One day, when Babu suddenly came home early, he saw that his wife and her lover were having lunch in his new house. Enraged, he murdered both his wife and her paramour.

The accused was given the benefit of special exception 1 to S. 300 as he acted without self control under grave and sudden provocation, which was not voluntarily provoked by him. Thus he was only liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

HOMICIDE BY RASH/NEGLIGENT ACT

Cherubin gregory v. state of bihar.

The wall of Smt. Madilen’s toilet had falled down due to incessant rains in Bihar. Madilen and her family started using the accused’s toilet. The accused repeatedly warned Madilen to stay away from his property to no avail. The accused erected a live un-insulated copper wire on the path to his property and switched it on. There was no warning that the wire was live except a lit bulb hanging at some distance. Madilen again came to Cherubin’s property and used the toilet. However, on leaving she touched the copper wire and died by electrocution. The court convicted Cherubin of causing death by rash/negligent act as he took the risk of a reckless act by erecting an un-insulated copper wire on his property when he knew that the property was being visited by his neighbours frequently. He was convicted u/s. 304A.

DOWRY DEATH

S. 304B of the IPC punishes causing dowry death. Dowry death is defined as causing death of a woman by burns, bodily injury or any unnatural cause, whether it be homicide or suicide, within

7 years of her marriage and it is shown that before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the husband, or a relative of the husband, or harassment, which was in connection with a demand for dowry.

Shanti (Smt.) v. State of Haryana

Kailash got married to a man in the Indian army. Soon after her marriage, Smt. Kailash was subjected to demands for dowry from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. When Kaliash’s father came to pick up his daughter for taking her to a family function, the mother-in-law rebuked Kailash’s father and prevented him from taking his daughter along with him as he had not fulfilled their wishes for dowry. Next day, the father came to know that his daughter Kailash has expired and has been cremated.

The mother-in-law and sister-in-law were convicted of dowry death u/s. 304B of the IPC as the death of Kialiash was unnatural, and caused within 7 years of marriage, moreover, she was subjected to cruelty by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law in connection to a demand for dowry. The accused were also convicted of S. 201 i.e. destruction of evidence as they hid the death of Kailash from her parents and hurriedly cremated her with a view to prevent an autopsy by the police.

HURT AND GRIEVOUS HURT

S. 319 of the Indian Penal Code defines simple hurt. Hurt is defined as causing of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to any person. S. 321 defines voluntarily causing hurt as an act with the intention of causing hurt to any person with the knowledge that he is likely to hurt to a person and causes hurt is said to voluntarily cause hurt. S. 323 defines the punishment for causing hurt.

Grievous Hurt

S. 320 of the Indian Penal Code defines grievous hurt. Grievous hurt is defined as the following kinds of descriptions of hurt: emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, privation of any member or joint, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or the face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, and any hurt that endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. S. 322 defines voluntarily causing grievous hurt. S. 325 defines the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, whereas S. 326 defines the punishment for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Rambaran Mahton v. The State

There was a dispute between two brothers. The younger brother came on Rambaran’s property and started abusing him. When the younger brother started abusing their mother, Rambaran lost his cool and pushed his brother to the ground, sat down on his stomach and punched and slapped him many times. The younger brother fainted from the beating. Later, Rambaran tried waking his brother up by offering him water but the brother did not respond and was declared brought dead to the hospital.

The court convicted Rambaran u/s. 325 i.e. punishment for causing grievous hurt as 5 ribs of the victim were found fractured and the spleen was ruptured, which falls under the description of grievous hurt u/s. 320. The court also applied S. 322 i.e. voluntarily causing grievous hurt as Rambaran had the knowledge that he is likely to cause grievous hurt by his punches and slaps.

The court however took a lenient view of the matter as Rambaran had tended to his brother once he cooled down and felt genuinely sorry for the death of his brother.

KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

S. 359 of the Indian Penal Code defines Kidnapping as of two kinds: Kidnapping from India, and Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship. S. 360 defines Kidnapping from India as conveyance of any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person.

S. 361 defines Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship as enticing any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian. The words lawful guardian in section 361 includes any person lawfully entrusted with the care of custody of such minor or other person.

S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras

17 year old Savitri became friendly with her neighbor Vardarajan. They used to talk to each  other from the balcony. Savitri’s sister Rama noticed them talking and asked Savitri as to why she was speaking with Vardarajan, whereupon Savitri declared to her sister that, “One day I would marry Vardarajan.” At night, Rama complained about Savitri and Vardarajan to her father. When questioned by the father as to Vardarajan, Savitri started crying but kept quiet. The same night, Savitri’s father drove her to their relatives’ house and kept her there intending that she stay away from Vardarajan for 1-2 months.

Next day early morning, Savitri left her relatives’ house and telephoned Vardarajan asking him to come to pick her up. Vardarajan came in a car and Savitri sat next to him and suggested that they should get married immediately. Vardarajan took her to the marriage registrar where they got married in the presence of two witnesses. They left for their honeymoon and upon return to Madras, Vardarajan was arrested by the police u/s. 361 IPC for kidnapping Savitri.

According to the court, Vardarajan was not guilty. This is because Savitri left her relatives’ house on her own. She was not enticed by Vardarajan at all. Savitri harboured intentions of marrying him without any enticement from his side. There was no evidence that the accused enticed Savitri by promising marriage to her. Vardarajan merely complied with Savitri’s wishes of marriage and this therefore cannot be said to be kidnapping as there was no enticement from Vardarajan.

Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat

Mohini, a 15 year old girl used to live with her mother and father. On Mohini’s birthday, Thakorlal, a wealthy industrialist gave her an extremely expensive Parker pen. However, Mohini’s mother insisted that she return it, and the same was returned. One day, when all of them were on a trip to Mt. Abu, Mohini’s mother saw Thakorlal sleeping with his arm around Mohini which alarmed her. From that day, Mohini’s mother forbade her daughter to meet Thakorlal. However, Mohini would run away from school and go to meet Thakorlal at his bungalow where they would engage in sexual intercourse. One day, Mohini’s mother found out that her daughter was missing school and sent over the police to Thakorlal’s house where he was arrested and Mohini was recovered from his house.

The court convicted Thakorlal of S.361/366 i.e. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship and Kidnapping for illicit intercourse. The court reasoned that Thakorlal had enticed Mohini by giving her expensive gifts and promising her a luxurious life at his house. Therefore, he was

RAPE, SEXUAL AND UNNATURAL OFFENCES

Rape is defined in S. 375 of the IPC. Rape can be committed only by a man against a woman. A woman can however be liable as an abettor to rape. The definition of rape has undergone  changes after the 2013 amendment act. Now the meaning of rape is not merely confined to penile-vaginal penetration. After 2013, rape includes penile-vaginal, penile-oral, penile-anal and digital penetration of a woman. This has significantly enlarged the scope of rape.

Passive Submission and Consent

Rao harnarain singh sheoji singh v. state.

Kalu and Surti were husband and wife living as servant tenants of Rao Harnarain, an advocate. One day, the DSP and Public Prosecutors assembled at Rao Harnarain’s house for a party. Rao Harnarain went over to Kalu and told him to surrender his wife for their sexual pleasures for the night. Kalu protested but gave in once Rao Harnarain threatened to throw them out of their tenancy and employment. When Kalu communicated the immoral request to his wife Surti, she vehemently protested but was coaxed into submitting. Through the night, Surti’s shrieks and cries were heard by Rao Harnarain’s neighbours. She died and her body was hurriedly cremated in the morning. The accused were prosecuted for rape. The defense suggested that Surti had consented to sexual intercourse and therefore the accused were not liable for rape.

The Court however held the accused liable. The court distinguished consent from passive submission. According to the court, Surti passively submitted but never gave her free consent. “A mere act of helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion, quiescence, non- resistance, or passive giving in, when volitional faculty is either clouded by fear or vitiated by

duress, cannot be deemed as free consent under law.” “Consent means voluntary participation, exercise of intelligence, based on knowledge, moral quality and assent. Submission of body under fear or terror is not consent.”

Gangrape (376D)

Bhupinder sharma v. state of himachal pradesh.

A woman went to Solan to purchase medicines for her ailing father. But she could not find the medical store. Two accused were passing by in an autorickshaw and offered to drop her to the medical store like any normal passenger. Instead of taking her to the medical store, the accused took her to a deserted house in the jungle where three more accused were present. Out of the five accused, four had raped her. Before Bhupinder could rape her, she escaped from the house and found a police vehicle on the highway. The police nabbed all the accused. Later, Bhupinder proclaimed his innocence for the crime since he never committed rape on her.

The court convicted Bhupinder under S. 376D Gangrape as it is unnecessary that he should have raped her when he was complicit in the act of rape committed by others. Bhupinder alongwith the other accused was acting in furtherance of common intention to rape the victim, therefore the mere fact that he himself did not physically rape did not amount to innocence for the act. Bhupinder was thus convicted for gangrape alongwith the other accused.

Scope of “Sexual Intercourse” prior to 2013 amendment

Sakshi v. union of india.

A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by the NGO Sakshi for a declaratory relief to widen the scope of sexual intercourse in S. 375 prior to the 2013 amendment. Prior to 2013 amendment, the meaning of sexual intercourse was confined to only

penile-vaginal intercourse. As a consequence of such restricted interpretation of “sexual intercourse”, other sexual acts such as penile-oral, penile-anal and digital penetrations were covered in offences of a much lesser degree. Acts involving penile-oral and penile-anal penetration was covered under S. 377. Whereas, digital penetration was covered under S. 354 i.e. outraging the modesty of woman and not rape.

The court however refused to enlarge the scope of sexual intercourse mentioned in the pre-2013 amendment S. 375 because it feared creating confusion in the country. It thus left it to the legislature to amend the definition of rape.

The legislature finally expanded the meaning of sexual intercourse to include various forms of penetrative sexual acts as rape under S. 375 by enacting the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2013.

When consent is given under erroneous belief of marriage (S. 375 Fourthly)

Bhupinder singh v. ut of chandigarh.

Manjit Kaur and Bhupinder used to work together in the office. Bhupinder proposed marriage to her. When Manjit said she wanted to take the permission of Bhupinder’s parents, Bhupinder insisted that they get married first as permission can be obtained later also. They got married. 2 years later, when Manjit and Bhupinder were visiting Rose Garden, Manjit was informed by someone that Bhupinder was previously married and has another wife and son living. When Manjit visited the address of Bhupinder’s parents, she was met by Bhupinder, the previous wife and the son, and Manjit was thrown out from the house after a heated argument. She filed a rape complaint under S. 375 Fourthly.

The court convicted Bhupinder Singh of rape under S. 375 Fourthly as she had consented to sexual intercourse only on the belief that she was lawfully married to Bhupinder whereas Bhupinder knew that his marriage with Manjit was void due to it being his second marriage. Therefore, Bhupinder Singh was convicted of rape under S. 375 Fourthly.

THEFT AND EXTORTION

S. 378 of the Indian Penal Code defines theft as an act where whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking. But a thing so long as it is attached to the earth, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft. A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

The consent mentioned in the definition of theft may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for the purpose authority either express or implied.

Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

Pyarelal Bhargava was a Superintendent in a government department. At the instance of his friend, Pyarelal removed a file from the office of the Chief Engineer. He gave this file to his friend who changed an affidavit and the next day, Pyarelal again placed the file back in the Chief Engineer’s office so that the loss may not be discovered.

The court convicted Pyarelal for theft under Ss. 378/379 because his intention was dishonest (S.

24) and committed with the intention of causing wrongful loss (S. 23) since his act of removing the file from the Chief Engineer’s office deprived the possession of the Chief Engineer. Even removing temporarily amounts to theft since loss of possession is enough to constitute the offence of theft.

Note: Read Illustration 378 (b) and (l).

Sekar v. Arumugham

Sekar took a loan of 4 lacs from Bank of Madura and purchased a lorry under hypothecation. Clause 14 of the deed of hypothecation gave the bank the right to seize the lorry in the non- payment of the loan or default in payment of loan therein. After some time, Sekar defaulted on the loan. Arumugham, the manager of the bank, ordered the seizure of the lorry and the said lorry was seized. Aggrieved by the seizure, Sekar filed a case of theft against the bank manager.

The court decided that the bank manager was not liable for theft as he did not possess a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to Sekar. Clause 14 of the hypothecation deed signed between Sekar and the bank itself gave a right to the bank to seize the lorry in the event of non-payment of the loan amount. The bank therefore rightly seized the lorry and no act of theft was committed.

S. 383 of the Indian Penal Code defines extortion as an act whereby whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.

State of Karnataka v. Basavegowda

Basavegowda married Bhagyamma. 10 days after their marriage, Basavegowda suggested that they attend his friend’s wedding and insisted that she must wear all her jewels. Instead of the wedding, however, he took her to the forest and threatened to kill her unless she removes all her jewels and hands it to him. Basavegowda was handed Rs. 11,000 worth of jewels which he

wrapped in his handkerchief. The wife scolded Basavegowda threatening police action and arrest. Hearing this enraged the husband and he started hitting her and even broke her rib. When he picked up a stone to hit her she screamed thus alerting some people nearby. The husband ran away with the jewels.

The court convicted Basavegowda of extortion since he intentionally put his wife in fear and dishonestly caused his wife to deliver her jewels to him. He thus committed extortion.

Jadunandan Singh v. Emperor

Narain and Sheonandan, the victims were coming from their fields when they were attacked by the accused, Alakh and Jadunandan. Jadunandan hit Narain with a spear without warning. After Narain fell, Alakh and Jadunandan hit Sheonandan. Alakh then held Narain and then Sheonandan whereas Jadunandan forcibly took their thumb impressions on 4 blank sheets of paper . The issue arose whether extortion had been committed.

The court decided that extortion was not committed by distinguishing between “giving” and “taking”. According to the court, S. 383 requires the act of voluntarily giving of thumb impression and not involuntarily forcible taking of the thumb impressions by the accused. Only voluntary giving of thumb impressions falls within the purview of S. 383. Therefore, the court acquitted the accused of the charge of extortion but convicted them of causing hurt and assault under Ss. 324 and 352.

CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION AND CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST

Criminal misappropriation.

S. 403 of the Indian Penal Code defines Criminal Misappropriation as dishonestly mis- appropriating or converting to his own use any movable property. Criminal Misappropriation can be committed only with respect to movable property and not immovable property.

Criminal Breach of Trust is defined in S. 405 of the Indian Penal Code as the act committed when any person is in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, and he dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do.

Ambika Prasad Singh v. The State

Ambika, an accountant in the Indian Railways fudged accounts relating to the ticket collection. He appropriated Rs. 7, 185.15 from the sum with which he was entrusted. The court decided that Ambika was guilty of committing criminal breach of trust u/s. 408 as he was a servant of the Indian Railways and thus liable to greater punishment.

Common Cause – A Regd. Society v. UOI

Captain Satish Sharma, the Union Petroleum minister in Prime Minster’s cabinet was entrusted with the allotment of 15 petrol pumps by following a defined procedure of official tender. Capt. Satish Sharma, on the other hand, allotted the petrol pumps to relatives of his personal staff, sons of ministers and members of oil boards. Capt. Satish Sharma was in a position of trustee w.r.t. the public property and he betrayed the trust of the people by distributing the petrol pumps

Cheating is defined in S. 415 as whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section and amounts to cheating, if property is caused to be delivered or certain steps are undertaken by the promise at the desire of the promisor which are harmful to promisee’s mind, body, reputation or property.

Akhil Kishore Ram v. Emperor

Akhil Kishore employed 4 clerks and created 18 aliases. He started advertising incantations and charms in the newspapers by using these false identities. The target of his advertisements was gullible men and women who want to be successful without putting in the hard work and effort. Akhil advertised the “Gupt Mantra ad” which was very catchy and went like this, “ No need to spend   lacs   when   success   can   be   had   without   any   effort   or    hardship    at    all.” “Buy this Gupt Mantra and after saying it 7 times you shall win in life, marriage, job, litigation etc. Send amount by postage Rs. 270, reward if proved fallible Rs. 100.”

25,000 clients bought the the gupt mantra. Some customers filed complaint of cheating against Akhil since the gupt mantra instructions involved undergoing a lot of hardship such as ,”keep staring at the moon without blinking for 15 minutes to use this mantra.” Since no such direction was mentioned in the advertisement, and feeling cheated that had they known that they would

have to perform an impossible task of staring at the moon for 15 minutes they would never have purchased the gupt mantra. The court convicted Akhil for cheating since he created 18 aliases and advertised dishonestly to deceive others of their money by well planned modus operandi.

Sri Bhagwan S.S.V.V. Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AP)

Sri Bhagwan was a godman whose devotee turned into his bête noire. The devotee, Vekatkrishna had attended Sri Bhagwan’s lectures where he represented himself as an occultist possessing divine healing powers through his touch; and that he particularly specialized in curing chronic diseases. Venkat approached Sri Bhagwan with his 15 year old daughter who was dumb by birth. Sri Bhagwan promised to cure her on payment of Rs. 1 lacs by the end of the year 1994.

However, the child was not cured by 1994. Sri Bhagwan promised to cure the child by August 1995 by performing a Yagna on payment of Rs. 1,000. Yagya was perfomed but the chuild was not cured. Vekat started harbouring doubts about the powers of Sri Bhagwan. He read in newspapers how Sri Bhawan had earned crores of rupees by defrauding gullible people. Realizing this, Venkat filed an F.I.R under cheating at the police station.

The court convicted Sri Bhagwan on the principle that when a person declares that he possesses healing powers, and if on the basis of such promise money is paid to him without any subsequent cure. S. 420 is committed by such person who makes the representations as he dishonestly deceives others with the object to deprive them of their property by making false promises.

Defamation is defined in S. 499. Defamation is the act where by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, the person makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person.

C. L. Sagar v. Mayawati

It was alleged that C. L. Sagar met Mayawati in pursuance of securing an election ticket of Bahujan Samaj Party. Mayawati is alleged to have said,” okay, pay Rs. 60,000 to my P.A. and I will give you the ticket. C. L. Sagar is alleged to have paid Rs. 50,000 and that he refused to pay Rs. 10,000 further unless his ticket was handed over to him which is alleged to have annoyed Mayawati. Mayawati in a political rally is alleged to have vented her anger by defaming C. L. Sagar by saying, “Badi lambi muchay hain, bade imaandaar bantey ho, baiman kahin ka.” C. L. Sagar filed a case of defamation against Mayawati.

According to the court, Mayawati’s statement did not amount to defamation as the complainant did not show to the court that he is the only one in Bahujan Samaj Party with an unusually long moustache. Thus, the proceedings under defamation were quashed by the high court.

Gautam Sahu v. State of Orissa

Gautam Sahu developed intimacy with the victim and married her. After a few days, he asked her to bring Rs. 20,000 from her father as dowry. When she refused, Gautam manhandled her and threw her out of the house. A panchayat was convened wherein the village elders requested Gautam to allow the victim to live with him as she was his wife. Gautam not only refused to take her back but publicly insulted her by calling her unchaste and ugly in front of the entire village. The victim registered an F.I.R. with the police alleging defamation. The court declared that prima facie the offence of defamation was made out and refused quashing of F.I.R.

Distinction between Preparation and Attempt

There is a very fine line between preparation and attempt. While, IPC does not define either of them, it is very important to distinguish between them because attempt is a crime but preparation is not. Both, Preparation and Attempt are physical manifestations of the criminal intention. But attempt goes a lot father than preparation towards the actual happening of crime. While in Preparation, there is a possibility that the person may abandon his plan, but attempt leaves no room for that. For example, keeping a pistol in pocket and looking for the enemy to kill is a preparation because one can abandon the plan anytime, but taking out the piston and pulling the trigger is attempt because it leaves no room for turning back.. Thus, in general, Preparation

involves collecting material, resources, and planning for committing an act while attempt signifies a direct movement towards commission after the preparations are made.

Ordinarily, to constitute an attempt the following elements are needed –

• mens rea to commit the crime
• ant act which constitutes the actus reus of a criminal attempt
• failure in accomplishment

In the case of R vs Cheesman 1862, Lord Blackburn identified a key difference between the two. He says that if the actual transaction has commenced which would have ended in the crime if not interrupted, there is clearly an attempt to commit the crime.

However, this is not the only criteria for determining an attempt. The following are four tests that come in handy in distinguishing between the two –

Last Step Test or Proximity Rule

As per this test, anything short of last step is preparation and not attempt. This is because as long as there is a step remaining for completion of the crime, the person can abandon it. For example, A obtains poison to kill B and mixes it with food that B is supposed to eat. But he has not yet given the food to B. Thus, it is still preparation. As soon as he keeps the food on the table from where B eats everyday, the last step is done and it becomes an attempt.

In the case of R vs Riyasat Ali 1881 , the accused gave orders to print forms that looked like they were from Bengal Coal Company. He proofread the samples two times and gave orders for correction as well so that they would appear exactly as forms of the said company. At this time he was arrested for attempt to make false document under section

464. However, it was held that it was not an attempt because the name of the company and the seal were not put on the forms and until that was done, the forgery would not be complete.

In the case of Abhayanand Mishra vs State of Bihar AIR 1961 , A applied to the Patna University for MA exam and he supplied documents proving that he was a graduate and was working as a headmaster of a school. Later on it was found that the documents were

fake. It was held that it was an attempt to cheat because he had done everything towards achieving his goal.

Indispensable Element Test or Theory of Impossibility

As per this test, all of indispensable elements must be present to equal attempt. For example, a person has the gun to kill but he forgot the bullets. In this case, it would not be an attempt. Further, he goes to place where victim should be but is not then he is not guilty of attempt under this test. In other words, if there is something a person needs to commit the crime but it is not present, then there is not an attempt. 

This test has generated a lot of controversy ever since it was laid in the case of Queen vs Collins , where it was held that a pickpocket was not guilty of attempt even when he put his hand into the pocket of someone with an intention to steal but did not find anything. Similarly, in the case of R vs Mc Pherson 1857 , the accused was held not guilty of attempting to break into a building and steal goods because the goods were not there.

However, these cases were overruled in R vs King 1892 , where the accused was convicted for attempting to steal from the hand bag of a woman although there was nothing in the bag. Illustration (b) of section 511 is based on this decision.

But For Interruption Test

If the action proves that the person would have gone through with the plan if not for the interruption such as arrest, then it is an attempt. For example, a person points a gun at another and is about to pull the trigger. He is overpowered and was stopped from pulling the trigger. This shows that if he had not been interrupted, he would have committed the crime and he is thus guilty of attempt even though the last step of the crime has not be performed.

Unequivocality Test or On the job Theory

If a person does something that shows his commitment to follow through and commit the crime then it is an attempt. For example, in the case of State of Mah. vs Mohd. Yakub 1980 , three persons were found with a truck loaded with silver near the sea dock. Further, the sound of engine of a mechanized boat was heard from a nearby creek. They were convicted of attempting to smuggle silver. J Sarkaria observed that what constitutes at attempt is a mixed question of law and the facts of a case. Attempt is done when the

culprit takes deliberate and overt steps that show an unequivocal intention to commit the offence even if the step is not the penultimate one.

Attempt to commit murder

Section 307 of IPC states that whoever does any act with intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if by that act he caused death he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act the offender shall be either liable to imprisonment for life.

This means that if a person intentionally does something to kill another and if the other person is not killed, he would be liable for attempt to murder. However, his action must be capable of killing. For example, if a person picks up a pebble and throws it on someone saying, “I will kill you”, it is not attempt to murder because it is not possible to kill someone with a pebble. But if someone swings a thick lathi and misses the head of another person, it is attempt to murder.

Illustrations –

• A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
• A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it is a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
• A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of ] this section.
• A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z’ s table or delivers it to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

Is Injury necessary

From the wordings of this section, it is clear that a person is liable under this section even if no injury is caused to anyone. However, if hurt is caused, the punishment is more severe. Further, as held in the case of State of Mah. vs Balram Bama Patil 1983 , SC held that for conviction under sec 307, it is not necessary that a bodily injury capable of causing death must be inflicted but the nature of the injury can assist in determining the intention of the accused. Thus, this section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result.

Whether act committed must be capable of causing death

In Vasudev Gogte’s Case 1932, the accused fired two shots at point blank range at the Governor of Bombay. However, it failed to produce any result because of defect in ammunition or intervention of leather wallet and currency. It was held that to support conviction under this section the accused must have done the act with intention or knowledge that but for any unforeseen intervention, it would cause death. Thus, he was held guilty.

Penultimate Act not necessary

In the case of Om Prakash vs State of Punjab, AIR 1961 , SC held that a person can be held guilty under this section if his intention is to murder and in pursuance of his intention he does an act towards its commission, even if that act is not the penultimate act. As per J B K Sharma, the intention of the culprit is the key and it must be gathered from all the circumstances and not merely from the location, number, and type of injury.

Section 307, 308, 309 and Section 511

Attempts are dealt with in IPC in three ways –

• Some sections such as 196 and 197, deal with the offence as well an attempt for that offence.
• Some sections such as 307 and 308 deal exclusively with an attempt of an offence.
• The attempts for offenses that are not dealt with in above two are covered by section 511.

Thus, a case of attempt to murder may fall under section 307 as well as section 511. There is a conflict of opinion among the high courts regarding this matter. In the case of R vs Francis

Cassidy 1867, Bombay HC held that section 511 is wide enough to cover all cases of attempt including attempt to murder. It further held that for application of section 307, the act

might cause death if it took effect and it must be capable of causing death in normal circumstances. Otherwise, it cannot lie under 307 even if it has been committed with intention to cause death and was likely, in the belief of the prisoner, to cause death. Such cases may fall under section 511. However, in the case of Queen vs Nidha 1891, Allahabad HC expressed a contrary view and held that sec 511 does not apply to attempt to murder. It also held that section 307 is exhaustive and not narrower than section 511.

In the case of Konee 1867 , it was held that for the application of section 307, the act must be capable of causing death and must also be the penultimate act in commission of the offence, but for section 511, the act may be any act in the series of act and not necessarily the penultimate act. However, this view has now been overruled by SC in the case of Om Prakash vs State of Punjab AIR 1967 , where the husband tried to kill his wife by denying her food but the wife escaped. In this case, SC held that for section 307, it is not necessary that the act be the penultimate act and convicted the husband under this section.

Mistake of fact

Sometimes an offence is committed by a person inadvertently. He neither intends to commit an offence nor does he know that his act is criminal. He may be totally ignorant of the existence of relevant facts. The knowledge of relevant facts is what really makes an act evil or good. Thus, if a person is not aware of the facts and acts to the best of his judgment, his act cannot be called

evil. Under such circumstances he may take the plea that his acts were done under the misconception of the facts. Such a mistake of fact is acknowledged as a valid defence in section 76 and 79 of IPC.

Section 76 – Act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believes to be bound by law – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law, in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it.

Illustration –

A, a soldier fires on a mob upon orders from his superior, in conformity with the commands of the law. He has committed no offence.

A, an officer of court of justice, upon ordered by that court to arrest Y, after due inquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. He has committed no offence.

Section 79 – Act done by a person justified or by a mistake of fact believing himself justified by law – Nothing is an offence which is done by the a person who is justified by law , or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.

A sees Z doing what appears to be murder. A, in the exercise to the best of his judgment, exerted in good faith of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the act, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence though it may turn out that Z was acting in self defence.

Difference between sec 76 and 79

The only difference between sec 76 and 79 is that in section 76, a person believes that he is bound by to do a certain act while in 79, he believes that he is justified by law to do a certain act. For example, a policeman believing that a person is his senior officer and upon that person’s orders fires on a mob. Here, he is bound by law to obey his senior officer’s orders. But if the

policeman believes that a person is a thief, he is not bound by law to arrest the person, though he is justfied by law if he arrests the person.

To be eligible in either of the sections, the following conditions must be satisfied –

• it is a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law that is excusable.
• the act must be done in good faith.

Meaning of Mistake –

A mistake means a factual error. It could be because of wrong information, i.e. ignorance or wrong conclusion. For example, an ambulance driver taking a very sick patient to a hospital may be driving faster than the speed limit in order to reach the hospital as soon as possible but upon reaching the hospital, it comes to his knowledge that the patient had died long time back and there was no need to drive fast. However, since he was ignorant of the fact, breaking the speed limit is excusable for him. A person sees someone remove a bulb from a public pole. He thinks the person is a thief and catches him and takes him to the police only to learn that the person was replacing the fused bulb. Here, he did the act in good faith but based on wrong conclusion so his act is excusable.

To be excusable, the mistake must be of a fact and not of law. A mistake of fact means an error regarding the material facts of the situation, while a mistake of law means an error in understanding or ignorance of the law. A person who kills someone cannot take the defence of mistake saying he didn’t know that killing is a crime because this is a mistake of law and not of fact. But, as in Waryam Singh vs Emperor AIR 1926 , he can take a defence of mistake saying he believed that the killed person was a ghost because that would be a mistake of a fact.

R vs Prince 1875 , is an important case where a person was convicted of abducting a girl under 18 yrs of age. The law made taking a woman under 18 from her guardian without her guardian’s permission a crime. In this case, the person had no intention to abduct her. She had gone with the person with consent and the person had no reason to believe that the girl was under 18. Further, the girl looked older than 18. However, it was held that by taking a girl without her guardian’s permission, he was taking a risk and should be responsible for it because the law made it a crime

even if it was done without mens rea. In this case, five rules were laid down which are guidelines whenever a question of a mistake of fact or mistake of law arises in England and elsewhere –

• When an act is in itself plainly criminal and is more severely punishable if certain circumstances coexist, ignorance of the existence is no answer to a charge for the aggravated offence.
• When an act is prima facie innocent and proper unless certain circumstances co-exist, the ignorance of such circumstances is an answer to the charge.
• The state of the mind of the defendants must amount to absolute ignorance of the existence of the circumstance which alters the character of the act or to a belief in its non- existence.
• When an act in itself is wrong, and under certain circumstances, criminal, a person who does the wrongful act cannot set up as a defence that he was ignorant of the facts which would turn the wrong into a crime.
• When a statute makes it penal to do an act under certain circumstances, it is a question upon the wording and object of the statute whether responsibility of ascertaining that the circumstances exist is thrown upon the person who does the act or not. In the former case, his knowledge is immaterial.

The above guidelines were brought in Indian law in the case of The King vs Tustipada Mandal AIR 1951 by Orissa HC .

In R vs Tolson 1889 , a woman’s husband was believed to be dead since the ship he was traveling in had sunk. After some years, when the husband did not turn up, she married another person.

However, her husband came back and since 7 years had not elapsed since his disappearance, which are required to legally presume a person dead, she was charged with bigamy. It was held that disappearance for 7 yrs is only one way to reach a belief that a person is dead. If the woman, and as the evidence showed, other people in town truly believed that the husband died in a shipwreck, this was a mistake of fact and so she was acquitted.

However, in R vs White and R vs Stock 1921 , a person was convicted of bigamy. Here, the husband with limited literacy asked his lawyers about his divorce, who replied that they will send the papers in a couple of days. The husband construed as the divorce was done and on that belief

he married another woman. It was held that it was a mistake of law.

Another condition that must be satisfied to take a defence of mistake of fact is that the act must be done in good faith. Section 52 says that nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention. Thus, if one shoots an arrow in the dark without ascertaining no one is there, he cannot be excused because he failed to exercise due care.

If a person of average prudence in that situation can ascertain the facts with average deligence, a person taking the defence of mistake of those facts cannot be said to have taken due care and thus, is not excusable.

Accidents happen despite of nobody wanting them. There is no intention on the part of anybody to cause accident and so a loss caused due to an accident should not be considered a crime. This is acknowledged in Section 80 of IPC, which states thus –

Section 80 – Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in doing of a lawful act, in a lawful manner by lawful means with proper care and caution.

Illustration – A works with a hatchet; the head flys off and kills a person standing nearby. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and is not an offence.

From section 80, it can be seen that there are four essential conditions when a person can take the defence of an accident –

• The act is done by accident or misfortune – Stephen in his digest of criminal law explains that an effect is said to be accidental if the act that caused it was not done with an intention to cause it and if the occurance of this effect due to that act is not so probable that a person of

average prudence could take precautions against it. The effect comes as a surprise to the doer of average prudence. SInce he does not expect it to happen, he is unable to take any precaution against it.

For example, a firecraker worker working with Gun powder knows that it can cause explosion and must take precaution against it. If it causes an explosion and kills a third person, he cannot claim defence of this section because the outcome was expected even though not intended.

However, if a car explodes killing a person, it is an accident because a person on average prudence does not expect a car to explode and so he cannot be expected to take precautions against it.

• There must not be a criminal intent or knowledge in the doer of the act – To claim defence under this section, the act causing the accident must not be done with a bad intention or bad motive. For example, A prepares a dish for B and puts poison in it so as to kill B. However, C comes and eats the dish and dies. The death of C was indeed an accident because it was not expected by A, but the act that caused the accident was done with a criminal intention.

In Tunda vs Rex AIR 1950 , two friends, who were fond of wrestling, were wresting and one got thrown away on a stone and died. This was held to be an accident and since it was not done without any criminal intention, the defendant was acquitted.

• The act must be lawful, and done in a lawful manner, and by lawful means – An accident that happens while doing an unlawful act is no defence. Not only that, but the act must also be done in a lawful manner and by lawful means. For example, requesting rent payment from a renter is a lawful act but threatening him with a gun to pay rent is not lawful manner and if there is an accident due to the gun and if the renter gets hurt or killed, defence under this section cannot be claimed.

In Jogeshshwar vs Emperor , where the accused was fighting with a man and the man’s pregnant wife intervened. The accused aimed at the woman but accidently hit the baby who was killed. He was not allowed protection under this section because he was not doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means.

• Proper precautions must be taken while doing the act – The act that causes the harm must

have been done with proper care and precautions. An accident caused due to negligence is not excusable. A person must take precautions for any effects that any person with average intelligence would anticipate. For example, a owner of a borewell must fence the hole to prevent children falling into it because any person with average prudence can anticipate that a child could fall into an open borewell.

In Bhupendra Singh Chudasama vs State of Gujarat 1998 , the appellant, an armed constable of SRPF shot at his immediate supervisor while the latter was inspecting the dam site in dusk hours. The appellant took the plea that it was dark at that time and he saw someone moving near the dam with fire. He thought that there was a miscreant. He shouted to stop the person but upon getting no response he fired the shot. However, it was proven that the shot was fired from a close range and it was held that he did not take enough precaution before firing the shot and was convicted.

Accident in a act done with consent

Section 87 extends the scope of accident to cases where an act was done with the consent of the victim. It says thus –

Section 87 – Nothing which is not intended to cause death or grevious hurt and which is not known to the doer to be likely to cause death or grevious hurt is an offence by reason of any harm that it may cause or be intended by the doer to cause to any person above eighteen years of age, who has given consent whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.

Illustration – A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent by each to suffer any harm which in the course of such fencing may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A committs no offence.

This is based on the premise that every body is the best judge for himself. If a person knowingly undertakes a task that is likely to cause certain damage, then he cannot hold anybody responsible for suffering that damage. Thus, a person watching another litting up firecrackers agrees to take

the risk of getting burned and must not hold anybody responsible if he gets burned. In Nageshwar vs Emperor, a person asked the accused to try dao on his hand believing that his hand was dao proof due to a charm. He got hurt and bled to death. However, the accused was acquitted because he was protected under this section. The deceased consented to the risk of trying dao on his hand.

Act of child, insanity, intoxication

As mentioned before, to hold a person legally responsible for a crime, in general, evil intention must be proved. A person who is not mentally capable of distinguishing between good and bad or of understanding the implications of an action cannot be said to have an evil intention and thus should not be punished. Such incapacity may arise due to age, mental illness, or intoxication. Let us look at each of these one by one –

Act of child

It is assumed that a child does not have an evil mind and he does not do things with evil intention. He cannot even fully understand the implications of the act that he is doing. Thus, he completely lacks mens rea and should not be punished. IPC contains for following exemptions for a child –

Section 82 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

Section 83 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and below twelve years of age who has not attained the sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of this conduct on that occasion.

Through these sections, IPC acknowledges the fact that children under seven years of age cannot have suffient maturity to commit a crime and is completely excused. In Indian law, a child below seven years of age is called Doli Incapax . In Queen vs Lukhini Agradanini 1874 , it was held that merely the proof of age of the child would be a conclusive proof of innocence and would

ipso facto be an answer to the charge against him.

However, a child above seven but below twelve may or may not have sufficient maturity to commit a crime and whether he is sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of the act needs to be determined from the facts of the case. To claim a defence under section 83, a child must

• not have attained sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of his act.
• be immature at the time of commission of the act.

Section 83 provides qualified immunity because presumes that a child above seven and below twelve has sufficient maturity to commit a crime and the burdon is on the defence to prove that he did not possess sufficient . Thus, in Hiralal vs State of Bihar 1977 , the boy who participated in a concerted action and used a sharp weapon for a murderous attack, was held guilty in the absence of any evidence leading to boy’s feeble understanding of his actions.

In English law, a boy below 14 years is deemed incapable of raping a woman but no such protection is offered in India and in Emperor vs Paras Ram Dubey , a boy of 12 years of age was convicted of raping a girl.

A person may be rendered incapable of judging an action as right or wrong due to several kinds of deficienty in mental faculty or a disease of mind. Such people are called insane. Their position is same as childern below the age of discretion. From time to time several approches have been adopted to understand insanity and to see whether a person was insane or not at the time of his act.

Wild Beast Test

This test was evolved in R vs Arnold 1724 . Here, the accused was tried for wounding and attempting to kill Lord Onslow. By evidence, it was clear that the person was mentally deranged. J Tracy laid the test as follows, “If he was under the visitation of God and could not distinguish

between good and evil and did not know what he did, though he committed the greatest offence, yet he could not be guilty of any offence against any law whatsoever.”

Insane Delusion Test

This test was evolved in Hadfield’s Case in 1800 , where Hadfield was charged with high treason and attempting the assasination of Kind George III. He was acquitted on the ground of insane delusion. Here, the counsel pleaded that insanity was to be determined by the fact of fixed insane delusions with which the accused was suffering and which were the direct cause of his crime. He pointed out that there are people who are deprived of their understanding, either permanently or temporarily, and suffer under delusions of alarming description which overpowers the faculties of their victims.

M’ Naghten’s Rules

In this case, Danial M’Naghten was tried for the murder of a private secretary of the then prime minister of England. He was acquitted on the ground of insanity. This caused a lot of uproar and the case was sent to bench of fifteen judges who were called upon to lay down the law regarding criminal responsibility in case of lunacy. Some questions were posed to the judges which they had to answer. These questions and answers are knows as M’Naghten’s Rules which form the basis of the modern law on insanity. The following principals were evolved in this case –

• Regardless of the fact that the accused was under insane delusion, he is punishable according to the nature of the crime if, at the time of the act, he knew that he was acting contrary to law.
• Every man must be presumed to be sane until contrary is proven. That is, to establish defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proven that the person suffered from a condition due to which he was not able to understand the nature of the act or did not know what he was doing was wrong.
• If the accused was conscious that the act was one that he ought not to do and if that act was contrary to law, he was punishable.
• If the accused suffers with partial delusion, he must be considered in the same situation as to the responsibility, as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.

For example, if the accused, under delusion that a person is about to kill him and attacks and kills the person in self defence, he will be exempted from punishment. But if the accused, under delusion that a person has attacked his reputation, and kills the person due to revenge, he will be punishable.

• A medical witness who has not seen the accused previous to the trial should not be asked his opinion whether on evidence he thinks that the accused was insane.

The Indian Law recognizes the first two principals and incorporates them in section 84.

Section 84 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by the reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Thus, a person claiming immunity under this section must prove the existence of the following conditions –

• He was of unsound mind – Unsound Mind is not defined in IPC. As per Stephen, it is equivalent to insanity, which is a state of mind where the functions of feeling, knowing, emotion, and willing are performed in abnormal manner. The term Unsoundness of mind is quite wide and includes all varieties of want of capacity whether temporary or permanent, or because of illness or birth defect. However, mere unsoundness of mind is not a sufficient ground. It must be accompanied with the rest of the conditions.
• Such incapacity must exist at the time of the act – A person may become temporarily out of mind or insane for example due to a bout of epilepsy or some other disease. However, such condition must exist at the time of the act. In S K Nair vs State of Punjab 1997 , the accused was charged for murder of one and greivious assault on other two. He pleaded insanity. However, it was held that the words spoken by the accused at the time of the act clearly show that he understood what he was doing and that it was wrong. Thus, he was held guilty.

Intoxication

Several times intoxication due to drinking alcohol or taking other substances cause the person to lose the judgment of right or wrong. In early law, however, this was no defence for criminal responsibility. In recent times this has become a valid defence but only if the intoxication was involuntary. Section 85 says thus –

Section 85 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it is by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law : provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

This means that to claim immunity under this section, the accused mus prove the existence of following conditions –

• He was intoxicated.
• Because of intoxication, he was rendered incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what is was doing was wrong or contrary to law.
• The thing that intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Director of Public Prosecution vs Beard 1920 was an important case on this point. In this case, a 13 yr old girl was passing by a mill area in the evening. A watchman who was drunk saw her and attempted to rape her. She resisted and so he put a hand on her mouth to prevent her from

screaming thereby killing her unintentionally. House of lords convicted him for murder and the following principles were laid down –

• If the accused was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime for which only intent was required to be proved.
• Insanity whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise is a defence to the crime charged. The difference between being drunk and diseases to which drunkenness leads is another. The former is no excuse but the later is a valid defence if it causes insanity.
• The evidence of drunkenness falling short of proving incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to commit a crime and merely establishing that his mind was affected by the drink so that he more readily gave way to violent passion does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of the act.

Self Defence

It is said that the law of self defence is not written but is born with us. We do not learn it or acquire it some how but it is in our nature to defend and protect ourselves from any kind of harm. When one is attacked by robbers, one cannot wait for law to protect oneself. Bentham has said that fear of law can never restrain bad men as much as the fear of individual resistance and if you take away this right then you become accomplice of all bad men.

IPC incorporates this principle in section 96, which says,

Section 96 – Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

It makes the acts, which are otherwise criminal, justifiable if they are done while exercising the right of private defence. Normally, it is the accused who takes the plea of self defence but the court is also bound take cognizance of the fact that the accused aced in self defence if such evidence exists.

In Section 97 through 106, IPC defines the characteristics and scope of private defence in various

situations.

Section 97 – Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend –

first – his own body or body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body. second – the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person,

against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

This allows a person to defend his or anybody else’s body or property from being unlawfully harmed. Under English law, the right to defend the person and property against unlawful aggression was limited to the person himself or kindred relations or to those having community of interest e.g. parent and child, husband and wife, landlord and tenant, etc. However, this section allows this right to defend an unrelated person’s body or property as well. Thus, it is apt to call it as right to private defence instead of right to self defence.

It is important to note that the right exists only against an act that is an offence. There is no right to defend against something that is not an offence. For example, a policeman has the right to handcuff a person on his belief that the person is a thief and so his act of handcuffing is not an offence and thus the person does not have any right under this section.

Similarly, an aggressor does not have this right. An aggressor himself is doing an offence and even if the person being aggressed upon gets the better of the aggressor in the exercise of his right to self defence, the aggressor cannot claim the right of self defence. As held by SC in Mannu vs State of UP AIR 1979 , when the deceased was waylaid and attacked by the accused with dangerous weapons the question of self defence by the accused did not arise.

The right to private defence of the body exists against any offence towards human body, the right to private defence of the property exists only against an act that is either theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass or is an attempt to do the same.

In Ram Rattan vs State of UP 1977, SC observed that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while the trespasses is in the act or process of trespassing and has not accomplished his possession, but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing the possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking resource to the remedies available under the law.

Restrictions on right to private defence

As with any right, the right to private defence is not an absolute right and is neither unlimited. It is limited by the following restrictions imposed by section 99 –

Section 99 – There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised – The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Explanation 1 – A person is not deprived of his right of private defence against an act done or attempted to be done by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe that the person doing the act is such public servant.

Explanation 2 – A person is not deprived of his right of private defence against an act done or attempted to be done by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows or has reason to

believe that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority if demanded.

Upon carefully examining this section, we can see that the right to private defence is not available in the following conditions –

• is done under colour of his office – an off duty police officer does not have the right to search a house and right to private defence is available against him. A police officer carrying out a search without a written authority, cannot be said to be acting under colour of his office. If the act of a public servant is ultra vires, the right of private defence may be exercised against him.
• the act does not cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt – for example, a police man beating a person senselessly can cause apprehension of grievous hurt and the person has the right of private defence against the policeman.
• is done under good faith – there must be a reasonable cause of action on part of the public servant. For example, a policeman cannot just pick anybody randomly and put him in jail as a suspect for a theft. There must be some valid ground upon which he bases his suspicion.
• the act is not wholly unjustified – The section clearly says that the act may not be strictly justified by law, which takes care of the border line cases where it is not easy to determine whether an act is justified by law. It clearly excludes the acts that are completely unjustified. For example, if a policeman is beating a person on the street on mere suspicion of theft, his act is clearly unjustified and the person has the right to defend himself.

However, this right is curtailed only if the person knows or has reasons to believe that the act is being done by a public servant. For example, if A tries to forcibly evict B from an illegally occupied premises, and if B does not know and neither does he have any reason to believe that A is a public servant or that A is acting of the direction of an authorized

public servant, B has the right to private defence.

In Kanwar Singh’s case 1965 , a team organized by the municipal corporation was trying to round up stray cattle and was attacked by the accused. It was held that the accused had no right of private defence against the team.

• when the force applied during the defence exceeds what is required to for the purpose of defence. For example, if A throws a small pebble at B, B does not have the right to shoot

A. Or if A, a thief, is running back leaving behind the property that he tried to steal, B does not have the right to shoot A because the threat posed by A has already subsided. In many situations it is not possible to accurately determine how much force is required to repel an attack and thus it is a question of fact and has to be determined on a case by

case basis whether the accused was justified in using the amount of force that he used and whether he exceeded his right to private defence.

In Kurrim Bux’s case 1865 , a thief was trying to enter a house through a hole in the wall. The accused pinned his head down while half of his body was still outside the house. The thief died due to suffocation. It was held that the use of force by the accused was justified.

However, in Queen vs Fukira Chamar , in a similar situation, a thief was hit on his head by a pole five times because of which he died. It was held that excessive force was used than required.

• the antecedent knowledge of the attack.
• how far the information is reliable and precise.
• the opportunity to give the information to the authorities.
• the proximity of the police station.

In Ajodha Prasad vs State of UP 1924 , the accused received information that they were going to get attacked by some sections of the village. However, they decided that if they separated to report this to the police they will be in more danger of being pursued and so they waited together. Upon attack, they defended themselves and one of the attackers was killed. It was held that they did not exceed the right of private defence.

Right to private defence of body up to causing death

Section 100 of IPC specifies six situations in which the right of private defence of body extends even to causing death.

Section 100 – The right of private defence of the body extends under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions here in after enumerated, namely –

First – such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.

Second – such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.

Third – An assault with the intention of committing rape.

Fourth – An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust. Fifth – As assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.

Sixth – An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

Even though this section authorizes a person to cause death of another in certain situation, it is also subject to the same restrictions as given in section 99. Thus, a person cannot apply more

force than necessary and must contact the authorities if there is an opportunity.

In Viswanath vs State of UP AIR 1960 , when the appellant’s sister was being abducted from her father’s home even though by her husband and there was an assault on her body by the husband, it was held that the appellant had the right of private defence of the body of his sister to the extent of causing death.

To be able to extend this right up to causing death, the apprehension of grievous hurt must be reasonable. In case of Sheo Persan Singh vs State of UP 1979 , the driver of a truck drove over and killed two persons sleeping on the road in the night. People ahead of the truck stood in the middle of the road to stop the truck, however, he overran them thereby killing some of them.

He pleaded right to private defence as he was apprehensive of the grievous hurt being caused by the people trying to stop him. SC held that although in many cases people have dealt with the errant drivers very seriously, but that does not give him the right of private defence to kill multiple people. The people on the road had a right to arrest the driver and the driver had no right of private defence in running away from the scene of accident killing several people.

Yogendra Morarji vs State of Gujarat 1980 is an important case in which SC observed that when life is in peril the accused was not expected to weigh in golden scales what amount of force does he need to use and summarized the law of private defence of body as under –

• There is no right of private defence against an act which is not in itself an offence under this code.
• The right commences as soon as and not before a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or thread to commit some offence although the offence may not have been committed and it is continuous with the duration of the apprehension.
• It is a defensive and not a punitive or retributive right. Thus, the right does not extend to the inflicting of more harm than is necessary for defence.
• The right extends to the killing of the actual or potential assailant when there is a reasonable and imminent apprehension of the atrocious crimes enumerated in the six clauses of section 100.
• There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat for the person confronted with an impending peril to life or of grave bodily harm except by inflicting death on the assailant.
• The right being in essence a defensive right does not accrue and avail where there is time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.

Duration of the right of private defence of body

Section 102 specifies the duration of the right of private defence of the body as follows –

Section 102 – The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

The right to defend the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

Right to private defence of property up to causing death

Section 103 of IPC specifies four situations in which the right of private defence of property extends even to causing death.

Section 103 – The right of private defence of property extends, under the restriction mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely –

First – Robbery

Secondly – House breaking by night

Third – Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent, or vessel, which building tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling or as a place for custody of property.

Fourth – Theft, mischief or house trespass under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence if such right of private defence is not exercised.

A person may cause death in safeguarding his own property or the property of some one else when there is a reason to apprehend than the person whose death has been cause was about to commit one of the offences mentioned in this section or to attempt to commit one of those offences.

In case of State of UP vs Shiv Murat 1982 , it was held that to determine whether the action of the accused was justified or not one has to look in to the bona fides of the accused. In cases where there is a marginal excess of the exercise of such right it may be possible to say that the means which a threatened person adopts or the force which he uses should not be weighed in golden scales and it would be inappropriate to adopt tests of detached objectivity which would be so natural in a court room.

Duration of the right of private defence of property

Section 105 specifies the duration of the right of private defence of the property as follows – Section 105 – The right of private defence of the property commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. It continues –

in case of theft – till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained or the property has been recovered.

in case of robbery – as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instance hurt or of instance personal restraint continues.

in case of criminal trespass – as long as the offender continues in the commision of criminal trespass or mischief.

in case of house breaking by night – as long as the house, trespass which has been begun by such house breaking, continues.

The case of Amjad Khan vs State AIR 1952 , is important. In this case, a criminal riot broke

out in the city. A crowd of one community surrounded the shop of A, belonging to other community. The crowd started beating the doors of A with lathis. A then fired a shot which killed B, a member of the crowd. Here, SC held that A had the right of private defence which extended to causing of death because the accused had reasonable ground to apprehend that death or grievous hurt would be caused to his family if he did not act promptly.

Culpable Homicide and Murder analogy

The word homicide is derived from two Latin words – homo and cido. Homo means human and cido means killing by a human. Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being. A homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes situations where a person who has caused the death of another cannot be blamed for his death. For example, in exercising the right of private defense or in other situations explained in Chapter IV of IPC covering General Exceptions. Unlawful homicide means where the killing of another human is not approved or justified by law. Culpable Homicide is in this category. Culpable means blame worthy. Thus, Culpable Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being in a blameworthy or criminal manner.

Section 299 of IPC defines Culpable Homicide as follows –

Section 299 – Who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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.

• A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of there by 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.
• 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 fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of Culpable Homicide.
• 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.

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.

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 skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3 – The causing of the death of 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.

Based upon the above definition, the following are the essential elements of Culpable Homicide –

• Death of a human being is caused – It is required that the death of a human being is caused. However, it does not include the death of an unborn child unless any part of that child is brought forth.
• By doing an act – Death may be caused by any act for example, by poisoning or by hurting with a weapon. Here act includes even on omission of an act for which one is obligated by law to do. For example, if a doctor has a required injection in his hand and he still does not give it to the dying patient and if the patient dies, the doctor is responsible.
• Intention of causing death – The doer of the act must have intended to cause death. As seen in Illustration 1, the doer wanted or expected someone to die. It is

important to note that intention of causing death does not necessarily mean intention of causing death of the person who actually died. If a person does an act with an intention of killing B but A is killed instead, he is still considered to have the intention.

• Intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – The intention of the offender may not have been to cause death but only an injury that is likely to cause the death of the injured. For example, A might intended only to hit on the skull of a person so as to make him unconscious, but the person dies. In this case, the intention of the person was only to cause an injury but the injury is such that it is likely to cause death of the person. Thus, he is guilty of Culpable Homicide. However, if A hits B with a broken glass. A did not know that B was haemophilic. B bleeds to death. A is not guilty of Culpable Homicide but only of grievous hurt because he neither had an intention to kill B nor he had any intention to cause any bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Or the act must have been done with the knowledge that such an act may cause death – When a person does an act which he knows that it has a high probability to cause death, he is responsible for the death which is caused as a result of the act. For example, A knows that loosening the brakes of a vehicle has a high probability of causing death of someone. If B rides such a bike and if he dies, A will be responsible for B’s death. In Jamaluddin’s case 1892 , the accused, while exorcising a spirit from the body of a girl beat her so much that she died. They were held guilty of Culpable Homicide.

Negligence – Sometimes even negligence is considered as knowledge. In Kangla 1898 , the accused struck a man whom he believed was not a human being but something supernatural. However, he did not take any steps to satisfy himself that the person was not a human being and was thus grossly negligent and was held guilty of Culpable Homicide.

Murder (When Culpable Homicide amounts to Murder)

Murder is a type of Culpable Homicide where culpability of the accused is quite more than in a

mere Culpable Homicide. Section 300, says that Culpable Homicide is Murder if the act by which the death is caused is done

• with the intention of causing death
• or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person,
• or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
• It is also Murder if the person committing the act knows that the act is so dangerous that it will cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death in all probability and he has no valid reason for doing that act.

A shoots Z with an intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits Murder.

A intentionally gives Z a sword cut that sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Z dies because of the cut. A commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill Z.

A without any excuse fires a loaded canon on a crowd. One person dies because of it. A commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill that person.

Thus, it can be seen that Murder is very similar to Culpable Homicide and many a times it is difficult to differentiate between them. J Melvill in the case of R vs Govinda 1876

Bom . analyzed both in the following table –

Based on this table, he pointed out the difference – when death is caused due to bodily injury, it is the probability of death due to that injury that determines whether it is Culpable Homicide or Murder. If death is only likely it is Culpable Homicide, if death is highly probable, it is Murder.

In Augustine Saldanha vs State of Karnataka LJ 2003 , SC deliberated on the difference of Culpable Homicide and Murder. SC observed that in the scheme of the IPC Culpable Homicide is genus and Murder its specie. All ‘Murder’ is ‘Culpable Homicide’ but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, ‘Culpable Homicide’ sans ‘special characteristics of Murder is Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder’. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of Culpable Homicide. The first is, what may be called, ‘Culpable Homicide of the first degree’ . This is the greatest form of Culpable Homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as ‘Murder’. The second may be termed as ‘Culpable Homicide of the second degree’ . This is punishable under the first part of Section

304 . Then, there is ‘Culpable Homicide of the third degree’ . This is the lowest type of Culpable Homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable Homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304 .

It further observed that the academic distinction between ‘Murder’ and ‘Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder’ has always vexed the Courts. They tried to remove confusion through the following table –

Thus, it boils down to the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding a particular victim in a particular state being in such condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not, in the ordinary circumstances, be sufficient to cause death. In such a case, intention to cause death is not an essential requirement. Only the intention of causing such injury coupled with the knowledge of the offender that such injury is likely to cause death, is enough to term it as Murder.

Situations where Culpable Homicide does not amount to Murder

Section 300 also specifies certain situations when the Murder is considered as Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. These are –

(Short Details)

• If the offender does an act that causes death because of grave and sudden provocation by the other.
• If the offender causes death while exceeding the right to private defense in good faith.
• If the offender is a public servant and does an act that he, in good faith, believes to be lawful.
• If the act happens in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
• If the deceased is above 18 and the death is caused by his own consent.

(Full Details)

Exception I – Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos –

• That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
• That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
• That the provocations not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation-Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to Murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations

• A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills, Y, Z’s child. This is Murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
• Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed Murder, but merely Culpable Homicide.
• A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This Murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
• A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is Murder.
• A attempts to pull Z’s nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of a to prevent him form doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is Murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
• Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only Culpable Homicide, but A is guilty of Murder.

Exception 2 – 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.

Illustration – Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed Murder, but only Culpable Homicide.

Exception 3 – Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting or the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the

person whose death is caused.

Exception 4 – 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 offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation-It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

In a very recent case of Byvarapu Raju vs State of AP 2007 , SC held that in a Murder case, there cannot be any general rule to specify whether the quarrel between the accused and the deceased was due to a sudden provocation or was premeditated. “It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not, must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case,” a bench of judges Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain observed while reducing to 10 years the life imprisonment of a man accused of killing his father. The bench passed the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by one Byvarapu Raju who challenged the life sentence imposed on him by a session’s court and later affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for killing his ‘drunkard’ father.

Exception 5 – Culpable Homicide is not Murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Illustration – A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted Murder.

Hurt and Grievous Hurt

In normal sense, hurt means to cause bodily injury and/or pain to another person. IPC defines Hurt as follows –

Section 319 – Whoever causes bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

Based on this, the essential ingredients of Hurt are –

• Bodily pain, disease or infirmity must be caused – Bodily pain, except such slight harm for which nobody would complain, is hurt. For example, pricking a person with pointed object like a needle or punching somebody in the face, or pulling a woman’s hair. The duration of the pain is immaterial. Infirmity means when any body organ is not able to function normally. It can be temporary or permanent. It also includes state of mind such as hysteria or terror.
• It should be caused due to a voluntary act of the accused.

When there is no intention of causing death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and there is no knowledge that inflicting such injury would cause death, the accused would be guilty of hurt if the injury is not serious. In Nga Shwe Po’s case 1883 , the accused struck a man one blow on the head with a bamboo yoke and the injured man died, primarily due to excessive opium administered by his friends to alleviate pain. He was held guilty under this section.

The authors of the code have observed that in many cases offences that fall under hurt will also fall under assault. However, there can be certain situations, where they may not. For example, if A leaves food mixed with poison on B’s desk and later on B eats the food causing hurt, it cannot be a case of assault.

If the accused did not know about any special condition of the deceased and causes death because of hurt, he will be held guilty of only hurt. Thus, in Marana Goundan’s case AIR 1941 , when the accused kicked a person and the person died because of a diseased spleen, he was held guilty of only hurt.

A physical contact is not necessary. Thus, a when an accused gave food mixed with dhatura and caused poisoning, he was held guilty of Hurt.

Cases of severe hurt are classified under grievous hurt. The authors of the code observed that it would be very difficult to draw a line between hurt and grievous hurt but it was important to

draw a line even if it is not perfect so as to punish the cases which are clearly more than hurt. Thus, section 320 of IPC defines Grievous Hurt as –

Section 320 – The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “Grievous” –

• Emasculation
• Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
• Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
• Privation of any member or a joint.
• Destruction or permanent impairing of powers of any member or joint.
• Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
• Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
• Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of twenty days, in severe body pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

Thus, it can be seen that grievous hurt is a more serious kind of hurt. Since it is not possible to precisely define what is a serious hurt and what is not, to simplify the matter, only hurts described in section 320 are considered serious enough to be called Grievous Hurt. The words “any hurt which endangers life” means that the life is only endangered and not taken away.

Stabbing on any vital part, squeezing the testicles, thursting lathi into rectum so that bleeding is caused, have all been held as Hurts that endanger life and thus Grievous Hurts.

As with Hurt, in Grievous Hurt, it is not a physical contact is not necessary.

Difference between Hurt and Grievous Hurt

Only hurts that are defined in section 320 are called Grievous Hurt.

Punishment for voluntarily causing Hurt as defined in section 323 is imprisonment of either description up to 1 year and a fine up to 1000 Rs, while punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt is imprisonment of either description up to 7 years as well as fine.

Difference between Grievous Hurt and Culpable Homicide

The line separating Grievous Hurt and Culpable Homicide is very thin. In Grievous Hurt, the life

is endangered due to injury while in Culpable Homicide, death is likely to be caused. Thus, acts neither intended nor likely to cause death may amount to grievous hurt even though death is caused.

In case of Formina Sbastio Azardeo vs State of Goa Daman and Diu 1992 CLJ SC , the deceased was making publicity about the illicit intimacy between N and W. On the fateful day, N, W, and her husband A caught hold of D and tied him up to a pole and beat him as a result of which he died. They were not armed with any dangerous weapon and had no intention to kill him. N and W were held guilty of only causing grievous hurt.

Kidnapping from India, kidnapping from guardianship, and abduction? Differentiate between Kidnapping and Abduction.

Kidnapping from India – Kidnapping from India means taking anybody, without his consent, out of the borders of India. Section 360 defines it as follows –

Section 360 – Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnanap that person from India.

For example, if A takes B without his consent or without B’s lawful guardians consent to Pakistan, A would be committing this offence. The essential ingredient of Kidnapping are –

• The person should be conveyed out of the borders of India.
• The person should be conveyed without his consent or without the consent of the person who is legally authorized to consent on his behalf.

Thus, if a person is not capable of giving valid consent as in the case of a minor or a person with unsound mind, the consent of his lawful guardian is required to take him outside India.

Kidnapping from Lawful guardianship – Kidnapping from lawful guardianship means taking a child away from his lawful guardian without the guardian’s consent. Section 361 defines it as follows –

Section 361 – Whoever takes or entices any minor under 16 yrs of age if male or 18 yrs of age if female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation – The words lawful guardian in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

Exception – This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

Based on this section the essential ingredients are –

• The person should either be a minor or a person of unsound mind – This implies that the person is not capable of giving consent. In case of male child the age is 16 yrs while in case of a female child the age is 18 yrs. For a person on unsound mind, age is immaterial.
• Such person be taken or enticed away – This means that either force is used or any enticement that causes the person to leave domain of the lawful guardian is used. For example, if A shows toffee to a child C thereby causing the child to come out of the house and follow A, it fall under this category.
• Such person must be taken or enticed away from the lawful guardian – Only when the child is under the lawful guardian, can he be kidnapped. This means that the child should be under the domain of the lawful guardian. For example, an orphan wandering on the streets cannot be kidnapped because he doesn’t have a lawful guardian. However, this

does not mean that a child must be with the lawful guardian. For example, a child siting in a school is also under the dominion of his father and if A takes such a child away, it would be kidnapping. Further, a lawful guardianship does not necessarily mean a legal guardian. A legal guardian may entrust the custody of his child to someone else. Taking a child away from such custody will also fall under this section. For example, A entrusts his child to B, his servant, to take the child to school. If, C takes the child away from the servant, this would be kidnapping because the servant has the lawful guardianship of the child.

Distinction between taken away and allowing a child to follow –

In Vardrajan vs State of Madras AIR 1965, SC observed that there is a difference between taking away a minor and allowing the minor to follow. If a person knowingly does an act which he has reason to believe will cause the child to leave the guardian, then it would amount to taking away the child, however, if child follows a person even when a person does not do any act meant to entice a child to leave his guardian, he cannot be held responsible. For example, if a child follows an icecream vendor, without any enticement from the vendor, while the guardian fails to keep the watch, the vendor cannot be held guilty under this section.

In Chajju Ram vs State of Punjab AIR 1968 , a minor girl was taken away out of the house for only about 20 – 30 yards. it was held that it was kidnapping because distance is immaterial.

Kidnapping is complete as soon as the minor or the person with unsound mind leaves the custody of the guardian. It is not a continuing offence. Thus, when a child is kidnapped from place P1 and taken to place P2 and then from P2 to P3, kidnapping was done only once.

Section 362 of IPC defines Abduction as follows –

Section 362 – Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place is said to abduct that person.

It means compelling a person, or to induce him to go from where he is to another place. The essential ingredients are –

A person goes from one place to another – A person cannot be abducted at the same place where he is. For abduction to take place, the person should physically move from one place to another.

Either by forcible compulsion or by inducement – The movement of the person must be because of some compulsion or because of some inducement. For example, A threatens B on gun point to go from his house to another city. Here, A has compelled B to go from his house and is thus guilty under this section.

Here, the age of the abducted person is immaterial. Thus, even a major can be abducted if he is forced to go from one location. But if a minor is abducted, it may amount to Kidnapping as well. Further, it is a continuing offence. As long as a person is forced to go from place to place, abduction continues.

Differences among Kidnapping from India, Kidnapping from lawful guardian, and Abduction –

In general, theft is committed when a person’s property is taken without his consent by someone. For example, A enters the house of B and takes B’s watch without B seeing and puts it in his pocket with an intention to take it for himself. A commits theft. However, besides the ordinary meaning conveyed by the word theft, the scope of theft is quite wide. Section 378 of IPC defines theft as follows –

Section 378 – Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Based on this definition, the following are the essential constituents of Theft –

• Dishonest intention to take property – There must be dishonest intention on the part of the offender. As defined in Section 24 of IPC, dishonestly means that there must be a wrongful loss to one or wrongful gain to another. For example, A quietly takes money from B’s purse for his spending. Here, A causes wrongful loss to B and is thus guilty of theft. However,if the intention of the offender is not to cause a wrongful loss or wrongful gain, he does not commit theft even if he takes the property without consent. For example, A gives his watch to B for repairing. B takes the watch to his shop. A, who does

not owe any debt to B for which B has the right to retain the watch, follows B and forcibly takes back the watch. Here, A does not commit theft because he has no dishonest intention. Similarly, when A, believing, in good faith, a property in possession of B, to be his, takes it from B, it is not theft.

In K. N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 S. C. 369 , SC held that proof of intention to cause permanent deprivation of property to the owner, or to obtain a personal gain is not necessary for the purpose of establishing dishonest intention. Thus, In Pyarelal Bhargava vs State AIR 1963 , a govt. employee took a file from the govt. office, presented it to B, and brought it back to the office after two days. It was held that permanent taking of the property is not required, even a temporary movement of the property with dishonest intention is enough and thus this was theft.

• Property must be movable – An immovable property cannot be stolen or moved from the possession so a theft cannot happen in respect of an immovable property. However, as per Explanation 1 of section 378, as long as a thing is attached to earth, not being movable, is not subject of theft. However, as soon as it is severed from the earth, it is capable of being the subject of theft. Further, Explanation 2 says that a moving affected by the same act that causes severance, may be theft.

For example, a tree on A’s land is not capable of being the subject of theft. However, if B, with an intention to take the tree, cuts the tree, he commits theft as soon as the tree is severed from the earth.

In White’s case, 1853 , a person introduced another pipe in a gas pipeline and consumed the gas bypassing the meter. Gas was held to be a movable property and he was held guilty of theft.

• Property must be taken out of possession of another – The property must be in possession of someone. A property that is not in possession of anybody cannot be a subject of theft. For example, wild dogs cannot be a subject of theft and so if someone takes a wild dog, it will not be theft. It is not important whether the person who possess the thing is the rightful owner of that thing or not. If the thing is moved out of mere possession of someone, it will be theft. For example, A, a coin collector, steals some coins from B, a fellow coin collector. A finds out that they were his coins that were stolen earlier. Here, even though B was not the rightful owner of the coins, he was still in

possession of them and so A is guilty of theft.

In HJ Ransom vs Triloki Nath 1942 , A had taken a bus on hire purchase from B under the agreement that in case of default B has the right to take back the possession of the bus. A defaulted, and thereupon, B forcibly took the bus from C, who was the driver of the bus. It was held that the C was the employee of A and thus, the bus was in possession of A. Therefore, taking the bus out of his possession was theft.

• Property must be taken without consent – In order to constitute theft, property must be taken without the consent of person possessing it. As per Explanation 5 , consent can be express or implied. For example, A, a good friend of B, goes to B’s library and takes a book without express consent of B, with the intention of reading it and returning it. Here, A might have conceived that he had B’s implied consent to take the book and so he is not guilty of theft. Similarly, when A asks for charity from B’s wife, and when she gives A some clothes belonging to B, A may conceive that she has the authority to give B’s clothes and so A is not guilty of theft.

In Chandler’s case, 1913, A and B were both servants of C. A suggested B to rob C’s store. B agreed to this and procured keys to the store and gave them to A, who then made duplicate copies. At the time of the robbery, they were caught because B had already informed C and to catch A red handed, C had allowed B to accompany A on the theft.

Here, B had the consent of C to move C’s things but A did not and so A was held guilty of theft.

• Physical movement of the property is must – The property must be physically moved. It is not necessary that it must be moved directly. As per Explanation 3 , moving the support or obstacle that keeps the property from moving is also theft. For

example, removing the pegs to which bullocks are tied, is theft. Further, as per Explanation 4 , causing an animal to move, is also considered as moving the things that move in consequence. For example, A moves the bullock cart carrying a box of treasure. Here, A is guilty of moving the box of treasure.

In Bishaki’s case 1917 , the accused cut the string that tied the necklace in the neck of a woman, because of which the necklace fell. It was held that he caused sufficient movement of the property as needed for theft.

Theft of one’s own property

As per the definition of theft given in section 378, it is not the ownership but the possession of the property that is important. A person may be a legal owner of a property but if that property is in possession, legally valid or invalid, of another, it is possible for the owner to commit theft of his own property. This is explained in illustration j of section 378 – A gives his watch to B for repairs. B repairs the watch but A does not pay the repairing charges, because of which B does not return the watch as a security. A forcibly takes his watch from B. Here, A is guilty of theft of his own watch.

Further, in illustration k , A pawns his watch to B. He takes it out of B’s possession, having not payed to B what he borrowed by pawning it, without B’s consent. Thus, he commits theft of his own property in as much as he takes it dishonestly.

In Rama’s Case 1956 , a person’s cattle was attached by the court and entrusted with another. He took the cattle out of the trustee’s possession without recourse of the court. He was held guilty of theft.

In Extortion, a person takes the property of another by threat without any legal justification. Section 383 defines extortion as follows –

Section 383 – Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed, which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.

For example, A threatens to publish a defamatory libel about B unless B gives him money. A has committed extortion. A threatens B that he will keep B’s child in wrongful confinement, unless B will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding B to pay certain moneys to A. B signs and delivers such noted. A has committed extortion.

The following are the constituents of extortion –

• Intentionally puts any person in fear of injury – To be an offence under this section, putting a person in fear of injury intentionally is a must. The fear of injury must be such that is capable of unsettling the mind of the person threatened and cause him to part with his property. Thus, it

should take away the element of freeness and voluntariness from his consent. The truth of the threat under this section is immaterial. For example, A’s child is missing and B, who does not have A’s child, threatens A that he will kill A’s child unless A pay’s him 1 lac Rs, will amount to extortion. Similarly, guilt or innocence of the party threatened is also immaterial. In Walton’s case 1863 , the accused threatened to expose a clergyman, who had criminal intercourse with a woman of ill repute, unless the clergyman paid certain amount to him. He was held guilty of extortion.

However, in Nizamuddin’s case 1923 , a refusal by A to perform marriage and to enter it in the register unless he is paid Rs 5, was not held to be extortion.

• Dishonestly induces a person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property – The second critical element of extortion is that the person who has been put to fear, must deliver his property to any person. Dishonest inducement means that the person would not have otherwise agreed to part with his property and such parting causes him a wrongful loss. Further, the property must be delivered by the person who is threatened. Though, it is not necessary to deliver the property to the person threatening. For example, if A threatens B to deliver property to C, which B does, A will be guilty of extortion.

The delivery of the property by the person threatened is necessary. The offence of extortion is not complete until delivery of the property by the person put in fear is done. Thus, Duleelooddeen Sheikh’s case 1866 , where a person offers no resistance to the carrying off of his property on account of fear and does not himself deliver it, it was held not to be extortion but robbery.

Extortion can also happen in respect of valuable security or anything signed that can become a valuable security. For example, A threatens B to sign a promissory note without the amount or date filled in. This is extortion because the note can be converted to valuable security.

In Romesh Chandra Arora’s case 1960 , the accused took a photograph of a naked boy and a girl by compelling them to take off their clothes and extorted money from them by threatening to publish the photograph. He was held guilty of extortion.

In R S Nayak vs A R Antuley and another AIR 1986 , it was held that for extortion, fear or threat must be used. In this case, chief minister A R Antuley asked the sugar cooperatives, whose cases were pending before the govt. for consideration, to donate money and promised to look into their cases. It was held that there was no fear of injury or threat and so it was not extortion.

Robbery is a severe form of either theft or extortion. In certain circumstances, a theft or an extortion gravitates to robbery. Section 390 defines robbery as follows –

Section 390 – In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery – Theft is robbery if, in order to the committing of the theft or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery – Extortion is robbery if the offender at the time of committing the extortion is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

Thus, a theft becomes a robbery when the following two conditions are satisfied –

• death, hurt, or wrongful restraint or
• fear of instant death, instant hurt, or instant wrongful restraint
• in order to the committing of theft or
• committing theft or
• carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.

For example, A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z’s money from Z’s clothes, without Z’s consent. A has committed theft and in order to commit that theft, he voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. Thus, A has committed robbery.

Robbery can be committed even after the theft is committed if in order to carrying away the property acquired after theft, death, hurt, or wrongful restraint or an instant fear of them is caused. The expression “for that end” implies that death, hurt, or wrongful restraint or an instant fear of them is caused directly to complete the act of theft or carrying away the property. In Hushrut Sheik’s case 1866 , C and D were stealing mangoes from tree and were surprised by B. C knocked down B and B became senseless. It was held to be a case of robbery.

Further, the action causing death, hurt, or wrongful restraint or an instant fear of them must be voluntary. Thus, in Edward’s case 1843 , a person, while cutting a string tied to a basket accidentally cut the wrist of the owner who tried to seize it. He was held guilty of only theft.

An extortion becomes a robbery when the following three conditions are satisfied –

• when a person commits extortion by putting another person in fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, and
• such a person induces the person put in such fear to deliver the property then and there and
• the offender is in the presence of the person put in such fear at the time of extortion.

For example, A meets Z on high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z in consequence surrenders his purse. Here, A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt and being present at the time of committing the extortion in his presence, A has committed robbery.

In another example, A meets Z and Z’s child on the high road. A takes the child and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z in consequence, delivers the purse. Here, A has extorted the purse from Z by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt of his child who is present there. Thus, A has committed robbery.

For extortion to become robbery, the fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint is must. Thus, when A obtains property from Z by saying, “Your child is with my gang and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees”, this is extortion but not robbery because the person is not put in fear of instant death of his child.

In presence of the person – The offender must be present where a person is put in fear of injury to commit the offence of robbery. By present, it means that the person should be sufficiently near to cause the fear. By his presence, the offender is capable of carrying out his threat immediately.

Thus the person put in such fear delivers the property in order to avoid the danger of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.

In Shikandar vs State 1984 , the accused attacked his victim by knife many times and succeeded in acquiring the ear rings and key from her salwar. He was held guilty of robbery.

As per section 391, a Robbery committed by five or more persons is dacoity.

Section 391 – When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting, or aiding is said to commit dacoity.

Conjointly implies a collective effort to commit or attempting to commit the action. It is not necessary that all the persons must be at the same place but they should be united in their efforts with respect to the offence. Thus, persons who are aiding the offence are also counted and all are guilty of dacoity.

It is necessary that all the persons involved must have common intention to commit the robbery. Thus, dacoity is different from robbery only in the respect of number of people committing it and is treated separately because it is considered to be a more grave crime.

In Ram Chand’s case 1932, it was held that the resistance of the victim is not necessary. The victims, seeing a large number of offenders, did not resist and no force or threat was used but the offenders were still held guilty of dacoity.

In Ghamandi’s case 1970, it was held that less than five persons can also be convicted of dacoity if it is proved as a fact that there were more than 5 people who committed the offence by only less than five were identified.

However, if 5 persons were identified and out of them 2 were acquitted, the remaining three cannot be convicted of dacoity.

Short and good notes.

Simple easy notes

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

LexForti Legal News Network

LexForti Legal News and Journal offer access to a wide array of legal knowledge through the Daily Legal News segment of our Website. It provides the readers with the latest case laws in layman terms. Our Legal Journal contains a vast assortment of resources that helps in understanding contemporary legal issues.

Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis

Rs 10 lakh imposed, defendant restrained from using ‘medilice’, essential things to look at before you sign a lease agreement.

Contact us for Legal Drafting and Reviewing

UPPSC Exam 2024 UPPSC Syllabus UPPSC Application Form 2024 UPPSC Eligibility Criteria UPPSC Admit Card​ UPPSC Study Plan & Strategy UPPSC Previous Year Questions UPPSC Cut Off Marks UPPSC Salary And Posts

UPPSC RO ARO Qualification UPPSC RO ARO Exam 2023 UPPSC RO ARO Post and Salary UPPSC RO ARO Previous Year Paper

BPSC 69th Notification BPSC 69th Prelims Result BPSC 69th Cut Off 69th BPSC Prelims Answer Key BPSC Syllabus​ BPSC Exam Pattern BPSC Cut Off Marks 67th BPSC Mains Admit Card 2022 67th BPSC Mains Exam Date 2022

Bihar APO Mock Interview

APSC CCE Exam Notification APSC CCE Prelims Answer Key 2023 APSC CCE Syllabus & Exam Pattern APSC CCE Prelims Result 2023 APSC CCE Admit Card 2023 APSC CCE Eligibility Criteria APSC CCE Previous Year Papers APSC CCE Cut Off 2023 APSC CCE Salary & Job Profile

MPPSC Calendar 2024 MPPSC Syllabus MPPSC Exam Pattern MPPSC Admit Card 2023 MPPSC Eligibility Criteria MPPSC Previous Year Paper MPPSC Cut Off MPPSC Salary And Job Profile

HPSC Notification HPSC Syllabus HPSC Exam Pattern HPSC Admit Card HPSC Cut Off HPSC Previous Year Paper HPSC Salary And Job Profile

WBPSC Syllabus WBPSC Eligibility Criteria WBPSC Application Form WBPSC Previous Year Questions WBPSC Salary & Job Profile

MPSC Notification MPSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern MPSC Application Form MPSC Eligibility Criteria MPSC Age Limit

CGPSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern CGPSC Question Paper 2023 CGPSC Answer Key 2023 CGPSC Admit Card 2023 CGPSC Eligibility Criteria CGPSC Salary And Job Profile

UKPSC Notification UKPSC Exam Calendar 2023 UKPSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern UKPSC Eligibility Criteria UKPSC Application Form 2023

JPSC Syllabus & Exam Pattern JPSC Eligibility Criteria JPSC Previous Year Papers

JKPSC Notification JKSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern JKSC Eligibility Criteria

RPSC RAS Syllabus RPSC RAS Exam Pattern RPSC RAS Eligibility Criteria RPSC RAS Cut Off

HPPSC Syllabus And Exam Pattern HPPSC Eligibility Criteria HPPSC Previous Year Question Papers and cut off

End of Content.

• Why IAS NEXT ?
• How to Choose Best IAS Coaching ?
• How to Choose Best Judiciary Coaching ?
• Admission Procedure
• Download Brochure

Clear Prelims 2024

• Sociology Optional
• Geography Optional
• UPSC Mentorship Program
• IAS With Graduation Degree
• UPPSC Mentorship Program
• Sociology by Sudhanshu Mishra
• Intensive IAS Program (Prelim + Mains)
• Intensive PCS Program (Prelim + Mains)​
• Intensive PCS-J / Judicial Services Program
• UPSC IAS Mock Interview
• Interview Guidelines
• Interview Transcripts
• Interview Material PCS - J
• Civil Services Test Series
• NCERT TEST SERIES
• Sociology Test Series
• UPSC Prelims Test Series 2024
• UPSC Mains Test Series 2024
• UP PCS Mains Test Series 2024
• Judiciary Test Series
• PCS-J Test Series
• DJS Preliminary Exam
• Latest Current Affair Blogs
• Daily Current Affairs 2024
• March Current Affairs
• Daily Current Affairs 2023
• December Current Affairs
• November Current Affairs
• October Current Affairs
• September Current Affairs
• August Current Affairs
• July Current Affairs
• June Current Affairs
• May Current Affairs
• April Current Affairs
• February Current Affairs
• Down to Earth Summary
• Prelims Special
• UPSC Topper's Notes
• Previous Year Question

     History

  Geography

  Indian Polity

  Indian Economy

  Science & Technology

 Indian Culture and Heritage

  Art & Culture

  Psychology

  Chemistry

  Political Science

    About Civil Services

  CSE Prelims Syllabus

  GS Prelims Strategy

  UPSC Preparation Strategy

  Civil Services Aptitude Test

  Previous Year Questions

• Study Materials

Indian Heritage & Culture

Ancient Indian History

Medieval Indian History

Modern Indian History

World History

World Geography

Indian Geography

Geography by Maps

Internal Security

Social Justice

Indian Polity

International Relations

Agriculture

Environment & Ecology

Science Technology

Disaster Management

  World History

  Ancient History

  Medieval History

  Modern History

  Indian Society

  Art and Culture

  Indian Geography

  World Geography

      Indian Polity

  Governance

  International Relations

  Social Justice

  Social Issues

  Agriculture

  Security Issues

  Disaster Management

  Environment & Ecology

IPC Section 299:- Culpable Homicide

• Law/ PCS-J Notes , PCS J Examination , PCS-J LAW , PCS-J STUDY MATERIALS , UPSC Examination , UPSC Optional
• Tap For Tech

Introduction

Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 is about culpable homicide. Before we move towards understanding culpable homicide, first let’s discuss homicide. The word homicide is made up of two words i.e. ‘ homi ’ and ‘cide’. ‘ homi ’ means man or human being and ‘ cide ’ means cutting or killing.

So, homicide is the killing of a human being. Now, the killing of a human being by another human being i.e. Homicide is not always punishable under IPC , 1860 , if it comes within the sections 76-106 chapter IV of IPC i.e. General exceptions.

Types of homicide

Homicide can be divided into two parts. First is justified or lawful homicide which comes under general exception ( chapter iv ) and second is unjustified/unlawful homicide which comes under sections 299,300, 304a & 304b , etc. Here we are concerned with unlawful or criminal homicide (i.e., homicides that are neither excused nor justified). All homicides are not culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are homicides. So we can here infer that homicide is the genus and culpable homicide is its species. That is the reason why ‘ homicide ’ a Latin term is called the generic term.

Culpable Homicide

As mentioned before culpable homicide is a type of unlawful homicide. Laws regarding culpable homicide are enshrined in the Indian Penal Code 1862 (IPC) . According to which, there are two types of culpable homicides –

After bifurcating the definition, we get 3 conditions which have to be fulfilled to attract Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code these are-

• The intention of causing death.
• The intention of causing such bodily injury as is  likely  to cause death.
• With the knowledge that he is  likely   by such an act to cause death .

Section 299 culpable homicide:

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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.

Essentials of section 299

The essentials ingredients of section 299 culpable homicide are:

• There must be the death of a person ;
• The death should have been caused by the act of another person and

The act causing death should have been done with :

• The intention of causing death; or
• The intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
• With the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.

Illustrations of section 299 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 believes the ground to be firm, treads on it fall in, and is killed. A has committed the offense of culpable homicide.

FAQs on Culpable Homicide under Section 299 of IPC

Culpable homicide is a type of unlawful homicide that involves causing the death of a person through specific acts or intentions. It is governed by Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

There are two types of culpable homicides under Section 299 of the IPC: a) Causing death with the intention of causing death. b) Causing death with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death. c) Causing death with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

The essential elements of Section 299 culpable homicide are: a) The death of a person must occur. b) The death must have been caused by the act of another person. c) The act causing death should have been done with the intention of causing death, intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Read also:- IPC Section 283: Danger Or Obstruction In Public Way Or Line Of Navigation

• IPC Section 299:- Culpable Homicide , PCS J Examination , PCS-J LAW , upsc examination

Demo Class/Enquiries

Clear pcs-j program ( pre + mains ), clear prelims - cap for upsc 2024, weekend programme for upsc- ias, upsc mains answer writing program, weekly pcs-j answer writing, current affairs magazine.

Environment, Ecology & Biodiversity Current Affairs Series (Class -1) by Sudhanshu Sir

Free Environment, Ecology and Biodiversity Lecture Series by Sudhanshu Sir

Loss of Biodiversity

Green Hydrogen

Key Biodiversity Areas

World Anti-Doping Report 2022

Right To Information Act

Black Carbon

Digital Governance in India

Upsc study materials.

• Answer Writing
• Career Guidance
• Current Affairs
• Down to Earth
• General Studies- Paper I
• General Studies- Paper II
• General Studies- Paper III
• General Studies- Paper IV
• Indian Penal code
• Landmark Judgements
• Law Entrance Exams
• LEGAL TERMS
• Legal Updates
• Miscellaneous
• Notification
• Other Topics
• PCS J Examination
• PCS-J STUDY MATERIALS
• Reports & Indices Current Affairs
• Sucess Story
• UGC NET Law
• UPPSC Examination
• UPPSC SYLLABUS
• UPSC Examination
• UPSC Prelims

Ancient India -for UPSC and other State PCS Examination

Art &Culture : for UPSC & State PCS (Mains)

Environment and Ecology : for UPSC and state PCS

Geography: Hand book for UPSC & State PCS

Indian Economy (GS) for IAS Prelims and Mains

Indian Constitution and Polity

Medieval History : For UPSC & State PCS

Medieval India : For UPSC & State PCS

Science & Technology for UPSC & State PCS

Modern History : For UPSC & State PCS

• General Enquiry : +91 9454721860
• Admin Enquiry : +91 7991861111
• Alternate Number : 05224241011
• [email protected]
• Monday to Friday: 9.00am - 8.00pm
• Free Download
• Test Series
• Study Material
• Topper's Notes
• Previous Year Questions
• IAS Next Franchise
• Web Stories

Copyright ©  C S NEXT EDUCATION. All Rights Reserved

• Lawyer Sign In
• Customer Sign In
• Lawyer Sign Up
• Customer Sign Up

• Divorce & Matrimonial Issue
• Money Recovery
• Property Dispute
• Criminal Matter
• Employment & Salary Issue
• Family Dispute
• Documentation
• Legal Heir Certificate
• Name change
• Draft and Review SHA/ SSA/ SPA
• Traffic Challan
• Succession Certificate
• Power Of Attorney
• Family / Matrimonial
• Court Marriage
• Mutual Consent Divorce
• Convert your Business
• Convert Pvt Ltd Company to OPC
• Convert Private to Public Limited Company
• Convert Partnership Company to an LLP
• Convert Proprietorship To Pvt Ltd Company
• Property Possession Delay
• Property Document Verification
• Transfer Deed
• Wills / Trusts
• Probate Of Will
• Find a Lawyer

• Indian Kanoon

Section 299 - Culpable Homicide

Section 299 of Indian penal code 1860 defines Culpable homicide as Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as 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. 

Illustration:

A places sticks and turf over a pit with the goal of inflicting death, or with the knowledge that death will result. Z treads on the firm ground falls in and is killed. The crime of culpable homicide was committed by A.

Z is hiding behind a shrub, which A is aware of. B is completely unaware of this. A causes B to shoot at the bush with the intent of killing Z or knowing that it is likely to kill Z. Z is killed by B's firing. B may not have committed any wrongdoing, but A has committed responsible homicide.

A kills B, who is hiding behind a bush, by firing at a fowl with the goal to kill and steal it. Despite the fact that A committed illegal conduct, he was not guilty of culpable murder since he did not plan to kill B or cause death by performing an act he knew would cause death.

Explanation 1.— A person who causes bodily injury to another who is suffering from a condition, disease, or bodily infirmity, thereby hastening his death, is regarded to have caused his death.

Explanation 2: When death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes the bodily injury is judged to have caused the death, even if the death could have been avoided by using suitable remedies and skilled care.

Explanation 3.— It is not homicide to cause a child's death in the mother's womb. However, if any part of a living child has been brought forth, even if the kid has not yet breathed or been fully born, it may be considered responsible for the murder.

Consult the best lawyer online

Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder: Murder falls under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1862, which states:

If the act is done with the intent of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death of the person, or if the inflicted bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if there is knowledge that the act is so fatal that it will almost certainly cause death, it is culpable homicide.

Illustration: 

X is aware that Z has a brain tumour, so he repeatedly hits him with a bat on the head in an attempt to kill him, and 

Z dies as a result.

Murder is X's fault

Is IPC 299 bailable?

Punishment for section 299 IPC is defined under section 304 which is a Non-bailable offence and Any other offence is considered a non-bailable offence. Bailable offences are regarded to be less serious and grave. Murder, for example, is a terrible and dangerous offence that is subject to bail. Bail is requested as a matter of right in cases where the offence is bailable. Bail is a discretionary matter for non-bailable offences.

What is the punishment of IPC 299 cases?

According to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever causes death with intent or causes bodily injury that is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused as a result of the act, shall be liable to life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine 

Second, anyone who causes death without intending to cause death or physical injury likely to cause death, or who has no knowledge that his actions could cause death, shall be sentenced to either type of imprisonment for a time up to ten years, as well as a fine. 

If the act that causes death is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, the offender will be sentenced to either type of imprisonment for a time up to 10 years, as well as a fine. 

Is IPC 299 a Cognizable or Non-cognizable offence?  

Punishment for section 299 is defined under section 304 which is Cognizable offence and A cognizable offence is one in which a police officer, under the first schedule or any other legislation in effect at the times, can arrest a suspect without a warrant and begin an investigation without the consent of the court.

How do you file/defend a case under section 299?

It's difficult to fight a criminal charge. You must comprehend the elements of the offence with which you have been accused and determine whether you have any defences to each. You don't need to deny all of the elements since the jury only needs to believe one of them. While each case is unique, the following are some of the most popular criminal defences. If the defendant is defending himself under Indian Penal Code Section 299, he should hire an attorney and work according to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Hire an experienced criminal lawyer to draft your complaint so that it is not dismissed by the police for any reason. 

If police officers fail to record your FIR, you can file a formal complaint with the station's Superintendent. A skilled attorney will fight hard in court to defend your case and will almost probably be able to help you, either by dismissing your case or reducing your sentence.

Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997): Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is the genus, and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is the species, according to the case of Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997). As a result, there are no separate sections dealing with culpable homicide that does not amount to murder; instead, the definition of murder is found in Section 300 of the IPC.

Get in touch with the best lawyer online

Observation: “The IPC has split culpable homicide into three degrees for determining the right punishment that is proportionate to the current act. The first is Murder, which is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, the second is the culpable homicide of the second degree, which is punishable under Section 304 part 1 of the Indian Penal Code, and the third is the lowest degree of culpable homicide, which is punishable under Section 304 part 2 of the Indian Penal Code. 

In Shanmugam v. State of T.N., the Court of Sessions decided that Section 304 offences are cognizable, non-bailable , and triable by the Court of Sessions. A feud grew between the accused and the deceased as a result of this. During the altercation, the accused stabbed the victim in the abdomen and chest with a spear, causing septicemia and death. Part I of Section 304 of the IPC was used to sentence the defendant to life in prison.

As we can see, Section 300 Exception 4 applies in this circumstance. As a result, Section 299 of the IPC would apply. Because it was obvious from the circumstances that there was a clear intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, Part 1 of Section 304 was triggered. 

Recent IPC's

• IPC Section 172
• Obscene Acts and Songs - IPC Section 294
• Public Servant - Section 21A
• Giving or Fabricating False Evidence - Section 195
• Taking Gift to Help to Recover Stolen Property, etc - Section 215

BOOK A SERVICE

Get in touch with us.

Talk to Legal Experts & get your query resolved.

Difference Between Culpable Homicide and Murder, Section 299 and 300 IPC

Difference Between Section 299 and 300 of IPC

• When culpable homicide is not murder?

Culpable homicide is a genus and murder its species. “All murders are culpable homicide, but all culpable homicides are not murder.”

According to Section 299 of the India Penal Code , culpable homicide means the unlawful killing of a human being, and this killing becomes murder when the act firstly fulfills all the conditions of section 299 and then section 300.

Categorization In Culpable Homicide

We can divide culpable homicide into two parts:

1. Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder (CHAM) –  The act which fulfills the conditions of section 299 and then 1st part of section 300.

2. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (CHNM) – The act which fulfills the conditions of section 299 but it either does not fulfill the conditions laid down in section 300 or lies in exceptions to section 300, that is the second part (if an act comes under exceptions of section 300 then the act of murder becomes culpable homicide).

3 Differences Between Section 299 and Section 300, IPC

Now, let us compare both the sections and see when does culpable homicide amounts to murder.

1. Intention of causing death.

The phrase “ an act with the intention of causing death ” has been used in sections 299 and 300 both. Then where is the difference?

Sometimes an intentional act that causes death will not amount to murder because it falls under the five exceptions provided in section 300, that’s culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

So, if an intentional act which fulfills the condition of section 299, but it goes to the second part of section 300 (exceptions), then that act does not amount to murder.

2. Bodily injury likely to cause death.

Whoever causes death by performing an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Comparing this part of section 299 with section 300, that is, if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury where the offender knows that it is likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. Or,

If the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person and where the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Bodily Injury + Intention + Knowledge = CHAM

Here, for this part, we can clearly see that an act, when done with intention but not with knowledge, will not amount to murder, and it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Bodily Injury + Intention = CHNM

But even if there is an absence of knowledge and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted, in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient, it will amount to murder.

Bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death + Intention = CHAM

3. A difference of knowledge under sections 299 and 300.

If a person causes death by doing an act with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.

This is the last condition laid down in section 299.

So if we raise the degree a bit higher, then the act will fall under section 300.

If the person committing the act has the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it will in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and thereby he commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid, amounts to murder.

Knowledge is in both the cases, but the degree makes the difference.

Example : I had a knowledge that if I give very tight two-three slaps to an old person who is very weak, he may die due to nervous shock. And if he dies, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

But what if I start beating him so severely that blood starts coming out. Knowing that the man is so weak that he will not be able to bear the pain even for a second. And if he dies, it will be culpable homicide amounting to murder.

Punishment Under Section 299 and 300 of IPC

The punishment for culpable homicide amounting to murder is under section 302 . Whereas, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it is under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

When an Act Becomes Murder

So to conclude, we can say that an act becomes murder only when first of all, it is culpable homicide and complies with conditions under section 299, and then it fits in section 300 too.

The intensity and degree of murder are much higher. Like hitting someone with a bat or stick and hitting someone with a sword is totally different.

When Culpable Homicide Is Not Murder?

Section 300 of IPC contains conditions or exceptions under which an act of murder, if falls, will be considered an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It contains five exceptions that reduce the gravity of the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The five exceptions mentioned under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code are:

• Grave and sudden provocation.
• Excess use of private defence.
• In exercise of legal power.
• Sudden heat and fight.

• Latest Posts

• Article 334A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
• Article 332A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
• Article 330A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024

Fain line difference with an appropriate illustration great 👍🏻

Glad you liked it.

Comments are closed.

How to Start Studying Law – For New, Existing, and Old Students

How to Study and Prepare for Judiciary Exams (13 tips)

11 Tips to Pass AIBE With Bare Acts and MCQ Tests in 2024

How to Write the Best Answer in Judiciary Mains Exam

10 Legal Jobs and Career Options After Law in 2024

Best Books for Judiciary Exam Preparation in 2024

My name is Ankur . I am a law graduate. I was my college topper for five years. In March 2018, I started WritingLaw.com . The main motive was to make a modern law website that is clean and comfortable.

Everything is going well . This is because of law students, advocates, judges and professors like you, who give me satisfaction, hope and the motivation to keep working. Thank you for your love and support. I hope you have a fruitful time here.

Law Study Material

© 2018-2024 | About Us |  Contact Us | Privacy Policy | T&C | Disclaimer | Cookies | Sitemap

Difference between Culpable Homicide Section 299 and Murder 300

Written by admin

Updated on: April 19, 2024

Section 299 and 300: Murder (defined under Section 300) and culpable homicide (defined under Section 299) are two offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Also Read: Stages of Crime under Indian Penal Code

• MURDER- DEFINITION & MEANING OF MURDER- SECTION- 300

Difference Between Money Bill and Finance Bill: Our Legal World

Kinds of Law:- Procedural and Substantive Law- Our Legal World

Related Post

AOR Exam Leading Cases Supreme Court

Cuet pg llm syllabus 2024: subject-wise syllabus details, what to look for in a criminal lawyer, sources and schools of hindu marriage act, 1955, leave a comment cancel reply.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Latest News

Surana & surana and school of excellence in law, tamil nadu dr.ambedkar law university national trial advocacy moot court.

Join Our Legal World Team: Exciting Opportunities Await! Apply Now

Call for Campus Ambassadors by Our Legal World [2 Months; Virtual]: Apply by June 15

Law Internship in IPR & Tax Law at Our Legal World

4th Bombay Bar Association – GLC International Law Summit, 2024 

TAX LAWS CLUB

Privacy Policy

© Ourlegalworld | All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Sitemap

© OurLegalWrld | All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | About Us | Contact Us

LEXIS AND COMPANY

Search this blog, title: understanding section 299 of ipc: offences relating to culpable homicide | lexis and company.

  Title: Understanding Section 299 of IPC: Offences Relating to Culpable Homicide | Lexis and Company

Description: In this informative video, we delve into the nuances of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), shedding light on its provisions and implications in the realm of criminal law. Section 299 deals with offences relating to culpable homicide, a critical aspect of criminal jurisprudence that carries significant legal consequences.

Section 299 of the IPC outlines the parameters of culpable homicide, which refers to the unlawful killing of a person with the intention to cause death or with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Understanding the elements of culpable homicide is essential for legal practitioners, law enforcement officials, and individuals navigating the complexities of criminal proceedings.

Throughout the video, we explore the key components of Section 299, including:

Act of Causing Death: Section 299 encompasses various acts that result in the death of another person, ranging from intentional acts to acts done with knowledge of the likelihood of causing death.

Intention or Knowledge: The mental state of the perpetrator plays a crucial role in determining culpable homicide. The section covers cases where death is caused either with the intention to cause death or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Exceptions and Exclusions: Section 299 provides for certain exceptions and exclusions, such as cases where death is caused in the exercise of the right of private defence or in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.

Punishment: Offences under Section 299 are punishable under the IPC, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to capital punishment, depending on the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the case.

By examining the provisions of Section 299 in detail, viewers will gain valuable insights into the legal principles governing culpable homicide and the implications for criminal liability.

Join us as we unravel the intricacies of Section 299 of the IPC, empowering viewers with knowledge and understanding of offences relating to culpable homicide. Whether you're a legal professional, law student, or individual interested in criminal law, this video offers invaluable insights into a critical aspect of the Indian legal system.

For further inquiries or legal assistance related to criminal law matters, contact Lexis and Company at +91-9051112233.

#Section299IPC #CulpableHomicide #IndianPenalCode #CriminalLaw #LexisAndCompany #LegalInsights #LegalEducation #CriminalJurisprudence #LegalAssistance #LegalConsultancy #LawEnforcement #LegalProvisions #LegalKnowledge #LegalExperts #LegalPrinciples #LegalAnalysis #LegalAdvice

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog, law internship and trainee opportunity, the doctrine of alternative danger, physical internship & training program - legal (level - 1).

• Publication
• Contacts Us

“Law is valuable, not because it is law but, because of the right in that law.”

LATEST NEWS

Strikes and Lockouts: Weapons of Collective Bargaining

MINIMUM WAGE IN INDIA: WHERE DOES IT LACK

• [email protected]
• [email protected]

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 299 AND 300 OF IPC

INTRODUCTION

Culpable homicide is defined under section 299 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Murder is defined under section 300 of IPC, are two very broad categories which provide the crime of killing anyone by the other wherein murder is provoked from culpable homicide. There always have been difficulties regarding the distinction between the culpable homicide and Murder. Both sections have very trivial difference between them. Even small misinterpretation can lead to a grave miscarriage of justice.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 299 AND SECTION 300 OF IPC

In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. RayavarapuPunnayya [1]   by Sarkaria , the difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder is provided as follows –

In the scheme of Penal Code, ‘culpable homicide is the genus and ‘Murder’ is the specie. All Murder amounts to culpable homicide but all culpable homicide does not amount to Murder.

In the case of Reg v. Govinda [2] it was stated that whether the offence of culpable homicide or the murder it depends on the degree of risk, if the death is likely to be caused then it is the offence of culpable homicide and if it is the most probable that death will caused then it is the offence of Murder.

In the case of Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana [3] it was seen that the knowledge denotes the bare state of conscious awareness of particular facts that in which human minds ay remain inactive or supine whereas intension cannot a conscious state in which mental faculties are roused into a activity an summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a specific end which the mind of human conceives and perceives before itself.

THE ESSENTIALS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE ARE:-

• Whoever causes death – Death means death of a person. It does not include the death of an unborn child, but it can lead to culpable homicide to cause death of a living child if any part of the child has been brought forth. However it is not necessary that the person whose death has been caused necessarily be the very person whose death was intended.
• By doing an act – death of the person may be caused in many ways such as by poisoning, starving, drowning or transferring some shocking news etc. Act here includes illegal doings. A mistake is illegal if it be an offence and in some direction is a breach of law.

(a ) Intention to cause death – Intention here means the expectation of the consequence in question. A person is charged with doing the act of which the probable consequence maybe highly injurious, the intention is inferred from the acts of the accused and it also depends on the circumstance of the case.

(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – The intention of the wrongdoer may not be to cause death but it would be enough if he intended to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death of the person.

(c) With the knowledge that person is likely by such an act to cause death – Knowledge is a very strong word and it imports a certainty and not merely a probability. Here knowledge refers to the personal knowledge of the offender who does the act.

Section 304 of IPC defines punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – the punishment is of imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to ten years and also be liable to pay fine.

In the case of Kusa Majhi v State of Orissa [4]

The deceased in the case admonished her own son for not going for fishing with the co-villagers. Angry on this the accused, the son brought an axe and dealt with the many blows on her shoulder and she died. There was no pre plan of the offence from the side of son. The blows were not on the neck or head region. The accused dealt blows likely to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death and he dealt blows on the spur of moment and anger. Therefore it was held to be the case of culpable homicide not Murder.

In case of Ganesh Dooley Tulsa [5]

A snake charmer exhibited in public a dangerous snake, whose fangs he knew had not been extracted and to show his skills without any intention to cause harm to anybody, placed the snake on head of one of the boy. The boy trying to push off the snake was bitten and died in result. The snake charmer was held to be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

ESSENTIALS OF MURDER ARE –

• Act by which the death caused is done with the intention of causing death: When the act is done with the intention of causing death, then it is called culpable homicide amounting to murder. ‘Act’ also includes illegal omissions. Death may be caused by illegal omission as well. It is the action of a man with the intention of killing a human being.
• With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death : Second clause of Section 300, if a person intentionally causes anybody bodily injury, with the knowledge that such bodily injury will cause death of the person injured, then that act will be culpable homicide amounting to murder. In case of offence comes under clause (2) of Section 300 of IPC, the intention to cause bodily harm and next, there is the ‘subjective knowledge’ that the death will be the likely result of the intended injury.
• With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person – Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death: According to clause (3) of Section 300 of IPC, it is sufficient that there is intention to cause the bodily injury that was really caused. The subjective factor ends with that. There need not to be further enquiry whether the offender has the intention or the knowledge that such bodily injury should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death.
• Person committing the act known that it is so dangerous that it will, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death: Clause (4) of Section 300 comes in the cases of dangerous action without an intention to cause specific bodily injury to anybody e.g., furious driving or firing at a target near the public place. However, the act must be done with the knowledge that the act was so dangerous that it must in all probability cause (1) death, or (2) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

In the case of B.N. Srikantiah v. Mysore State [6] there were as many as 24 injuries on the deceased and 21of them were incised. They were on his head, the neck, or the shoulders or on the forearms. Since, the most of the injuries were on essential parts and the weapons used were short, it was held that there was intention of causing bodily injuries, bringing it under the cover of Section 300.

THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER ARE :

• Culpable homicide is broader than the term murder. That’s why Culpable Homicide is considered as genus and murder is regarded as the species. All murders are culpable homicide but not all Culpable Homicides are murder.
• Murder is an aggravated form of the culpable homicide.
• In murder, the wrongdoer has a definite knowledge that the act would result in the death while in culpable homicide the knowledge is not that definite.
• The probability of causing death is a lot higher in murder than culpable homicide.

By- Prashant Singh

Related Posts

Cyber Space and the various Challenges attached to the regulation of Information and Communication Technology.

International Incidence in recent months

Comment (1).

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic info I was looking for this information for my mission.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.