CULPABLE HOMICIDE BY - PIULI BANERJEE
CULPABLE HOMICIDE
AUTHORED BY - PIULI BANERJEE
Abstract
Homicide is a phrase derived from the
Latin words 'homo' (human) and 'caedere' (killing). Homicide is an act that has
existed from the beginning of time. Early men used to murder one other for food
or to establish dominance, monarchs used to commit homicide to gain territory,
and now people kill each other out of jealously, greed, and other emotions.
Culpable homicide (Section 299 of the
Indian Penal Code) [1]and
Culpable Homicide amounting to murder (Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code)
[2]are
the two types of homicide in India. Both of these have relatively little
variances, yet these distinctions are critical for the judicial system since
they affect the delivery of a fair judgement.
Keywords
Culpable homicide, Indian penal code,
murder, section 299, section 300
Introduction
Manslaughter is also known as
Culpable Homicide. It is a legal phrase in Scotland and England that refers to
a variety of criminal killings that are equal to manslaughter in other legal
criminal countries.
Culpable Homicide is defined in
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code as "whoever causes death by doing an
act with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that such act is
likely to cause death, commits the offence of Culpable Homicide."
The Penal Code defines culpable
homicide simpliciter (Section 299, I.P.C), often known as manslaughter under
English law, as a genus, and murder (Section 300, I.P.C), as a species of
homicide.
Explanation 1 - A person who causes bodily damage
to someone who is suffering from a condition, disease, or bodily infirmity,
therefore hastening that other's death, is judged to have caused his death.
Explanation 2 - Where death is caused by physical
harm, the person who causes such bodily injury is regarded to have caused the
death, even if the death might have been avoided by using adequate remedies and
skilled treatment.
Explanation 3: It is not murder to cause the death
of a kid in the mother's womb. However, causing the death of a live child may
constitute culpable homicide if any portion of that kid was brought forth, even
if the infant did not breathe or be born totally.
Lawful and unlawful homicide
A suspect in a homicide cannot always
be held accountable. This is where the concept of legal homicide comes from,
when the accused has a valid motive to conduct the crime. In certain instances,
the individual will not be prosecuted and may be excused from the charges.
These can include death caused by self-defence,
error of fact, or lawful execution, among other things. Hence Homicide can be
both legal and illegal. Justifiable and excusable homicide are examples of
lawful homicide. Death through reckless and careless conduct (Sec 304-A),
suicide (Sec 309), or culpable murder are all examples of unlawful homicide.
Essential elements of culpable
homicide
Culpable murder is the first type of
unlawful murder as described in Section 299, I.P.C. It seeks to define and
explain when an act of causing death is Culpable Homicide. The critical factors
are:
1) the death of a human being.
2) Such death must have been caused
by an act committed i. with the aim of causing death; or ii. with the intention
of inflicting such physical damage as is likely to cause death; or iii. with
the knowledge that the doer is likely to cause death by such an act.
The mere fact that a human person is
killed is insufficient. An act resulting in death cannot be considered culpable
homicide unless one of the mental states listed in the ingredient is present.
Thus, where a constable with a loaded but defective gun attempted to arrest an
accused who was riding on a bullock cart by climbing on the cart, a scuffle
ensued, during which the gun went off and killed the constable, it was held
that the accused could not be held guilty of Culpable Homicide.
Culpable homicide not amounting to
murder(section 299)
It is simply referred to as culpable
murder, and it is covered under Section 299 of The Indian Penal Code 1862,
which states:
He will be committing the offence of
culpable homicide if he does an act with the goal of causing death or physical
damage that is likely to cause death, or with knowledge that his conduct will
likely cause death.
After splitting the term, we have
three requirements that must be met in order to be charged under Section 299 of
the Indian Penal Code:
·
The
aim to cause death.
·
The
purpose to do physical harm that is likely to result in death.
·
With
the awareness that he is likely to cause death by doing so.
In Nara Singh Challan v. State of
Orissa (1997), [3]it was determined
that Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is the genus and Section 300 of the
Indian Penal Code is the species. As a result, there are no separate sections
dealing with culpable homicide that does not amount to murder; instead, Section
300 of the IPC defines Murder.
Culpable homicide amounting to
murder(section 300)
Murder is a crime that falls under
the jurisdiction of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1862, which states:
Culpable homicide is murder if the
act is committed with the intent of causing death or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause the 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 involved that the act is so fatal that in all probability it can
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such
an act.
After splitting the term, we have
four requirements that must be met in order to invoke Section 300 of the Indian
Penal Code, which are as follows:
·
The
aim to cause death.
·
The
purpose to cause physical damage that the criminal knows is likely to result in
the death of the person to whom the harm is done.
·
With
the purpose to cause bodily harm to any person, and the physical harm intended
to be inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the regular course of nature.
·
The
person conducting the act is aware that it is so imminently hazardous that it
must, in all likelihood, result in death or physical damage that is likely to
result in death, and conducts the act without any justification for taking the
risk.
Exception to section 300 of IPC
When an act is done with the aim to
cause death, it is considered culpable homicide, however in the instances
listed below, this concept does not apply. The following actions may constitute
culpable homicide but not murder. Exceptions 1-5 in the (d) and (f)
illustrations of Section 300 of the IPC specify situations in which culpable
homicide does not amount to murder, as follows:
·
It
is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if it is perpetrated by a person
who loses control and kills someone as a result of a grave and immediate
provocation.
·
When
an offender causes the death of someone while exercising his right to private
defence of person and property in good faith, it is not culpable homicide
amounting to murder.
·
It
is not culpable homicide amounting to murder if a public worker kills someone
while carrying out his responsibilities in good faith and thinks that his
actions were legal.
·
If
a person causes the death of another person in a violent fight in the heat of
passion during a sudden argument, it is not criminal homicide amounting to
murder.
·
When
a person over the age of 18 suffers death with his own agreement, it is not
culpable homicide amounting to murder.
This is not new legislation; it dates
back to the British Empire. In the case of R. v. Latimer [4](1886),
a man got into a battle and, in order to punish the guy, he pulled out his belt
and struck it, but it bounced and hit a lady, who was severely hurt. According
to the court,
The defendant is to be held
accountable for the woman's injuries, notwithstanding the fact that he had no
intention of harming her. The men’s anger has shifted from the man he was about
to attack with his belt to the woman.
As seen by the case of Rajbir
Singh v. State of U.P., [5]this
piece of legislation is so perplexing that some judges forget it even exists.
In this case, the Supreme Court
chastised the Allahabad High Court for failing to examine Section 301 of the
Indian Penal Code.
In this case, a girl was killed by a
gunshot fired at another person. The High Court concluded in its judgement that
there was a mistake and that the accused had no intention of killing the girl.
The Supreme Court ruled that the
accused's intent should be disregarded in this instance. The court further
ruled that the Allahabad High Court's basis for labelling the act as an
accident is invalid since it was incorrect. He was eventually held accountable
for his acts.
Punishment
·
Section
304 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide that
does not amount to murder (Section 299 IPC). It states that whoever causes
death with intent or causes bodily injury that is likely to cause death or with
knowledge that death is likely to be caused as a result of the act shall be
liable for life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for a term
that may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine (Section 304(1)
IPC).
Second, anyone who causes death
without intending to cause death or bodily injury that is likely to cause
death, or who has no knowledge that his act could cause death, is sentenced to
imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to ten years, as
well as a fine (Section 304(2)IPC).
·
Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for murder or culpable
homicide equivalent to murder (as defined in Section 300 of the IPC). It states
that whomever commits murder faces life imprisonment or the death sentence, as
well as a fine.
However, the death sentence can only
be used in the most exceptional of circumstances, as stated in the case of Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab[6],
where it was remarked that since the court had the option of life imprisonment,
why should the court resort to such an awful punishment as the death penalty?
The Indian judiciary has specified specific situations under which the death
penalty may be employed as a remedy. These requirements were spelled down in
the case of Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [7]and
are as follows:
When the murder is performed in an
extraordinarily violent, absurd, devilish, repugnant, or despicable manner that
arouses the community's intense and severe wrath. For example, lighting fire to
someone's house with the goal of burning it down.
The crime was committed on a big
scale, resulting in several deaths.
When a person dies because of his or
her caste or faith;
When the accused's motivations were
cruelty or complete depravity; and
When the murder victim is an innocent
kid, an elderly or infirm lady or man, a prominent figure, etc.
However, determining what is the
rarest of the rare and what is not remains subjective. As a result, it leaves
an ambiguity as to when the death penalty can be applied, and recent
developments in the Mukesh & Anr vs State for Nct of Delhi & Ors
(Nirbhaya case), [8]in
which all of the accused were sentenced to death penalty, have made this topic
the epicentre of several heated debates across the country. The major question
raised is that, like other countries, why can't India abolish the death penalty
when there is another option.
Culpable homicide vs murder
"All murders are culpable
homicides, but not all culpable homicides are murders," is a popular
expression used to distinguish culpable homicide from murder. It discusses the
point that I've previously proven: responsible homicide is the genus, and
murder is the species. The main
distinction is that murder is a more serious type of culpable homicide. There
is no ambiguity in murder that the act may or may not kill, as there is in
culpable homicide, as evidenced by Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, which
states unequivocally:
"If he commits an act with the
intent of causing death or bodily injury that is LIKELY to cause death, or with
knowledge that his act is LIKELY to cause death, he will be committing the
offence of culpable homicide."
As Sir James Stephen said, it is
exceedingly difficult to discern between Culpable Homicide and Murder because
both result in death. But there is a difference, although a minor one; it all
boils down to a very slight variance in the purpose and knowledge involved in
both offences. The true difference is in the degree of the deed; there is a
significant variation in the degree of purpose and knowledge between the two
offences.
Case laws
Bhagwan Singh v. state of Uttarakhand[9]
The judgement in this case was
recently issued, however the matter dates back to 2007. In this case, 5 persons
were injured, and two of them died as a result of celebratory shooting. The
Supreme Court's outraged bench, comprised of C.J.I. S.A. Bobde, BR Gavai, and
Surya Kant, JJ, stated:
The number of occurrences has
increased due to celebratory gunfire, which is viewed as a status signal. A
licenced gun meant for protection should not be used in celebratory occasions
since it can be lethal.
According to the evidence, the
accused pointed the pistol at the house's roof, but the bullets were deflected
and damaged. The accused pled not guilty, claiming that he had no intention of
killing anyone. The accused was carrying a loaded revolver in public and did
not take adequate care of his surroundings, according to the court. He must
have imagined that the pellets may deflect and injure someone.
He was found guilty by the court. The
offence amounted to criminal murder under IPC Section 299, punishable under IPC
Section 304 Part 2.
Ram Kumar v. state of Chhattisgarh[10]
In this case, the appellant is so in
love with his sister-in-law that he summons her to a field and slashes her head
with an axe one day before her wedding. The girl ran back to her residence and
then to the police station to register a FIR. She was then sent to the
hospital, but she died on the way. The court attempted to concentrate on the
legal character of the FIR in order to determine if it was acceptable as evidence
of a dying declaration.
The court, citing Dharam Pal v.
State of Uttar Pradesh[11],
stated that a FIR might be regarded a dying declaration if the victim dies
before appearing in court.
In this case, the appellant was
sentenced by the District Court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(punishment for murder), but the accused filed a criminal appeal in the High
Court against the District Court's judgement, wherein the court, after
reviewing the post mortem report, which revealed that if the girl had arrived
at the hospital sooner, she could have been saved, changed the appellant's
conviction and sentenced him under section 304 part I India.
Conclusion
Culpable Homicide is a broad area
with practical applications. It encompasses all felonious homicides other than
murder. It is essentially a killing that the perpetrator did not intend or
foresee as likely to occur; it is an unintentional, blamable felonious killing.
There have been several instances when this area of law has been used and
appropriately applied. Sections 299, 301, 304, and 304A deal in detail with the
various aspects covered by this subject. However, the provisions are not
exhaustive, and there is a need to put many of the Law Commission's suggestions
for better administration of justice into practise in order to aid in the
evolution of this subject over time.
References