Understanding the Difference Between Murder and Culpable Homicide in Indian Law with examples

 Difference Between Murder and Culpable Homicide

Legal Definitions and Key Distinction

• Culpable Homicide (Section 299, IPC): Refers to causing 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 such act is likely to cause death. The intent here may not always be direct or absolute.

• Murder (Section 300, IPC): Is a specific form of culpable homicide where the act is done with a clear, deliberate intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or with knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death.

Print Page

What is importance of intention in determining whether an offence is murder or culpable homicide?

 The decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr 1976 (4) SCC 382 notes the important distinction between the two provisions, and their differing, but subtle distinction. The court pertinently pointed out that:

"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, "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 this generic offence, the Code practically recognises 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..

13. The considerations that should weigh with courts, in discerning whether an act is punishable as murder, or culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, were outlined in Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh5. This court observed that:

"29. Therefore, the Court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant

matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance

of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and

group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed,

jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no

intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be

criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder

where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to

put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts

to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not

converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of

culpable homicide not amounting to murder are treated as murder punishable

under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally

from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other,

circumstances; (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was

carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow

is aimed at a vital part of the body;(iv) the amount of force employed in

causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or

sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or

whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior

enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;(viii) whether there was any

grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix)

whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the

injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual

manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The

above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be

several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which

may throw light on the question of intention.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 856 of 2021

MOHD. RAFIQ @ KALLU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Author: S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

Dated: September 15, 2021.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in case of offence of culpable homicide?

 It is well settled that in order to be called a murder, it needs to be culpable homicide in the first place, that is to say all murders are culpable homicides, but the vice versa may not true in all cases. Therefore, we need to ascertain whether a case of culpable homicide is made out herein in the first place. In this context, we need to observe Section 299 of Indian Penal Code at the outset-

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.

(Emphasis supplied)

17. As noted above, causation is an important ingredient to determine as to whether a person commits culpable homicide in the first place. Causation simply means "causal relationship between conduct and result". In this respect we need to assess whether the contentions of the parties could stand the scrutiny of the law of the land. Section 299 of Indian Penal Code 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. In our considered opinion this case turns on the second leg of causal relationship wherein, could the injuries caused by the police officers be sufficiently imputed to be the cause of death of Joinus herein?

18. It is settled under common law wherein the principle of 'take their victim as they find them' is followed,1 meaning 'A person who does any act/omission which hastens the death of another person who, when the act is done or the omission is made, is labouring under some disorder or disease arising from another cause, is deemed to have killed that other person.' This principle has been expressly ingrained under the Explanation 1 to the Section 299 of Indian Penal Code. Without going into details on this aspect as this is not a case of multiple causation requiring us to consider the same, rather it is a case wherein the deceased died of asphyxiation due to contents of his vomit, hours later from the time when the injury was inflicted, which is an independent reason for cause of death herein.

19. As elucidated above, various other circumstances which disassociate the cause of death to the actions of the Appellant officers are available. It is on record that the injuries noted in the post-mortem report clearly indicate that the nature of these injuries were not grievous. The head injury noted does not show any internal fracture to the skull bone. Therefore, when, on facts, it is concurrently inferred by the courts below that the cause of death was due to asphyxiation, we do not see any reasons for accepting a different factual inference herein, as the same is not perverse.

20. Further, we agree with the reasoning of the High Court on the aspect that the PW-1 (Zarina) has not been completely honest in her statements. She has at times deposed over-zealously, thereby mandating us to be cautious in accepting her evidence. Further no witness has clearly deposed on the aspect of injuries and how they happened to be, except for blank statements that 'beatings were given to the deceased Joinus'. Further we may note that the surrounding circumstances also strengthen our conclusions such as firstly, the condition of the deceased was said to be good as per the statements of PW-21 (cell-inmate) and PW-42 (head constable) although he was suffering from tuberculosis, when he was admitted in the lock-up. Secondly, Joinus (deceased) was heavily inebriated when he was arrested and thirdly, the aspect of asphyxiation which is a significant cause to break the chain of causal link between the death of Joinus and the injuries inflicted by the Appellants herein.

21. As discussed above, the causal link between the injuries caused to the deceased by the erring officers and the death is not connected, therefore, Section 299 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted. Accordingly, there is no question of attracting Section 302 or 304 of Indian Penal Code.

22. In any case this Court in catena of cases has taken a view that, as regards the inference of facts, when two Courts have acquitted the Accused-Appellant of charges Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, then it would not be appropriate upon this Court to overturn the factual finding, unless the view taken by the lower courts is shown to be highly unlikely or unreasonable or perverse. Although the learned Counsel for the State has tried to argue that the cumulative effect of the injuries was responsible for the death, but the medical evidence itself, on the other hand affirms the high possibility of death due to asphyxiation. Further there is no material brought before us to portray that the courts below had taken a perverse view. In this light, when two reasonable views are possible, then reversal of concurrent acquittal would not be appropriate herein.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-386, 299, 387-388 of 2008 and 182-187 of 2009

Decided On: 04.09.2018

 Yashwant  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

Print Page