LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

smith sharma (lecturer)     14 August 2008

MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Hi,

    Respected members of this forum pls give me the main difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide.I m always confuse abt it . I know everything abt murder n culpeble homicide bt my basic concept is not clear abt that topic.

Thanx

With regards

Mis. Smith Sharma[lawyer]



Learning

 10 Replies

Guest (n/a)     14 August 2008

Culpable homicide is also murder but murder is of gravest kind. culpable homicide is th genus and murder is a species of culpable homicide.


If u read the two sections(299 &300 of I.P.C) simultaneously, u will find the words in italics mentioned in sec 300 of I.P.C speaks higher degree and there lies the diffrence.


For furthere reference refer to the case R v. Govinda (1876) ILR Bom. 342

Guest (n/a)     14 August 2008

We can deffrianciate  culpable homocide and murder in one world as "all the murder is culpale homocide but all the culpable homocide is not murder." 

Mohit Attri (lawyer)     14 August 2008

  Section 299      Section 300


A person commits culpable homicide  Subject to certain

exceptions

if the act by which the death is  culpable homicide is

murder  caused is done      if the act by

which the

       death is caused is done -


INTENTION


(a) with the intention of causing    (1) with the

intention of

    death; or     causing death; or


(b) with the intention of causing   (2) with the

intention of

    such bodily injury as is likely   causing such

bodily injury

  to cause death; or     as the offender

knows to be

        likely to cause the

death of

        the person to whom the

harm

        is caused; or


        (3) With the intention

of

        causing bodily injury

to any

        person and the bodily

injury

        intended to be

inflicted

        is sufficient in the

        ordinary course of

nature

        to cause death; or


KNOWLEDGE

****


(c) with the knowledge that the act      (4) with the

knowledge that

  is likely to cause death.   the act is so

imminently

        dangerous that it must

in all

        probability cause death

or

        such bodily injury as is

        likely to cause death,

and

        without any excuse for

        incurring the risk of

causing

        death or such injury as

is

        mentioned above.

  


Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2)

and (3) of Section 300.  The distinguishing feature of the mens

rea requisite under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by

the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a

peculiar 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 way of nature be

sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or

condition.  It is noteworthy that the 'intention to cause death'

is not an essential requirement of clause (2).  Only the

intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the

offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing

the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the

killing within the ambit of this clause.  This aspect of clause

(2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300.


Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such

knowledge on the part of the offender.  Instances of cases

falling under clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the

assailant causes death by a fist blow intentionally given

knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or

enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to

cause death of that particular person as a result of the

rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the

case may be.  If the assailant had no such knowledge about

the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to

cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course

of nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even

if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given.

In clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words 'likely to

cause death' occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of

Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death" have been used. Obviously, the

distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death

and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature

to cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if

overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference

between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300

is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the

intended bodily injury.  To put it more broadly, it is the degree

of probability of death which determines whether a culpable

homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree.  The

word 'likely' in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of

probable as distinguished from a mere possibility.  The words

"bodily injury.......sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable"

result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of

nature.


For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that

the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death

ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient

to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.  Rajwant and

Anr. v. State of Kerala, (AIR 1966 SC 1874) is an apt

illustration of this point.


In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1958 SC 465),

Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court, explained the meaning

and scope of clause (3). It was observed that the prosecution

must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under

Section 300, "thirdly". First, it must establish quite objectively,

that a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of the

injury must be proved. These are purely objective

investigations.  Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an

intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it

was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of

injury was intended.  Once these three elements are proved to

be present, the enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must

be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of

the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death

in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is

purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the

intention of the offender.


The ingredients of clause "Thirdly" of Section 300, IPC

were brought out by the illustrious Judge in his terse language

as follows:


"To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove

the following facts before it can bring a case

under Section 300, "thirdly".


First, it must establish, quite objectively, that

a bodily injury is present.


Secondly, the nature of the injury must be

proved.  These are purely objective

investigations.


Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an

intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,

that is to say that it was not accidental or

unintentional, or that some other kind of

injury was intended.

Once these three elements are proved to be

present, the enquiry proceeds further and,


Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of

the type just described made up of the three

elements set out above is sufficient to cause

death in the ordinary course of nature.  This

part of the enquiry is purely objective and

inferential and has nothing to do with the

intention of the offende

 

deepak kumar (Advocate)     14 August 2008

to make matter simple every culpable homicide is murder barring a few exceptions as detailed in section 300 IPC




 


 




 


advocatesdiary.blogspot.com




 


 




 


 

smith sharma (lecturer)     16 August 2008

Hi,


    Mr. Mohit


                    Thanx 4 given me this info.It's useful 4 my basic concept.


                      Thanx 2 all of u respected members.


Miss. Smith Sharma[lawyer]

Shree. ( Advocate.)     16 August 2008

 Murder - Culpable homicide and murder - Difference between Sections 299(b) and 300 - 


    The difference between Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 is degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury - Prosecution must prove the following acts before it can bring a case under Section 300, "thirdly" - It must establish that a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of injury - It must be proved that there was a intention to inflict that particular injury - Lastly it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up the thee elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Settu Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.)

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     17 August 2008

Dear Smith, Shree and Mohit has washed off your confusion. There is nothing more to add. good work by all. Good Luck.

Kanhaiya Singh (Advocate)     17 August 2008

Homicide is killing of human being by human being. It is either (i) lawful or (ii) unlawful.




 


                     Lawful homicide, or simple homicide, includes several cases falling under the General Exceptions ( Chapter IV ).




 


                     Culpable homicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide. Sec.299 defines the offence of culpable homicide.This section says when culpable homicide amounts to murder.In the IPC 'culpable homicide' is used as generic term, and is exhaustively sub-divided into two species, namely culpable homicide amounting to murder ( sec.300, cls. 1,2,3,4 ) and culpable homicide not amounting to mueder ( sec.299 and  Exceptions to sec.300 ).




 


                        So,the distinction between the two is fine and real.The offence is culpable hoicide if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death, it is murder, if such injury is sufficient in the ordinay course of nature to cause death. In considering whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the manner of causing the injuries as deposed by prosecution witnesses, nature of injuries caused , part of the body where they were caused, weapons used in the commission of the offence and conduct of the accused are all relevant factors. 

Gagan K Das (Student)     15 December 2009

friends... my Professor used to say there there is no such tangible difference between 299 and 300. .. its just an instrument to give less punishment to those criminals who are in the good books of the judges. the leading old case where the husband hit the wife with a stone on her chest, made all types of attacks.. yet the judgement was that he was accused of 299!! WTF,... that judgement has been a matter of interest for all academicians and everyone have condemned that judgement.

now coming to the difference.. the main difference happens to be that:

299- that act is likely to cause death.
300 - death is the most probable consequence of that act.

in both murder and culpable homicide, there is intention, there is an intention to kill, act would have occured.... there is both mens rea as well as actus reus. Some senior advocates also mislead us by saying that there is no mens rea in 299!!

the above said is the only difference given in Ratanlal book. This phrase can be interpreted in anyway as it pleases the Judge!!

And it is for us lawyers to defend of our clients and get them less punishment.

Abdul taiyyab (abdul)     10 January 2012

 

Bombay High Court
Reg vs Govinda on 18 July, 1876
Equivalent citations: (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342
Author: Melvill
Bench: Melvill, Kemball, N Haridas
JUDGMENT
Melvill, J.
1. I understand that these proceedings have been referred to me under Section 271-B of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, in order that I may decide whether the offence committed by the prisoner was murder, or culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
2. For convenience of comparison, the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code may be
stated thus:
Section 299.
A person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused is done
(a) With the intention of causing death;
(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death:
(c) With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
Section 300.
Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done (1)
With the intention of causing death;
(2) 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;
(3) With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;
(4) With the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
3. I have underlined the words which appear to me to mark the differences between the two offences.
4. (a) and (1) show that where there is an intention to kill, the offence is always murder.
5. (c) and (4) appear to me intended to apply (I do not say that they are necessarily limited) to cases in which
there is no intention to cause death or bodily injury. Furious driving, firing at a mark near a public road, would
be cases of this descripttion. Whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder, depends upon the degree of
risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide; if it is the most probable result, it is
murder.
6. The essence of (2) appears to me to be found in the words which I have underlined. The offence is murder,
if the offender knows that the particular person injured is likely, either from peculiarity of constitution, or
immature age, or other special circumstance, to be killed by an injury which would not ordinarily cause death.
The illustration given in the section is the following:
A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with
intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow
might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state
of health.
7. There remain to be considered (b) and (3), and it is on a comparison of these two clauses that the decision
of doubtful cases like the present must generally depend. The offence is culpable homicide, if the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death; it is murder, if such injury is sufficient in the, ordinary
course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine, but appreciable. It is much the same distinction as that
between (c) and (4), already noticed. It is a question of degree of probability. Practically, I think, it will
generally resolve itself into a consideration of the nature of the weapon used. A blow from the fist or a stick
on a vital part may be likely to cause death; a wound from a sword in a vital part is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death.
8. In the present case the prisoner, a young man of 18, appears to have kicked his wife, (a girl of 15) and to
have struck her several times with his fist on the back. These blows seem to have caused her no serious injury.
She, however, fell on the ground, and I think that the evidence shows that the prisoner then put one knee on
her chest, and struck her two or three times on the face. One or two of these blows, which, from the medical
evidence, I believe to have been violent and to have been delivered with the closed fist, took effect on the
girl's left eye, producing contusion and discoloration. The skull was not fractured, but the blow caused an
extravasation of blood on the brain, and the girl died in consequence either on the spot, or very shortly
afterwards. On this state of facts the Sessions Judge and the assessors have found the prisoner guilty of
murder, and he has been sentenced to death. I am myself of opinion that the offence is culpable homicide, and
not murder. I do not think there was an intention to cause death; nor do I think that the bodily injury was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Ordinarily, I. think, it would not cause death. But a
violent blow in the eye from a man's fist, while the person struck is lying with his or her head on the ground,
is certainly likely to cause death, either by producing concussion or extravasation of blood on the surface or in
the substance of the brain. A reference to Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (Fourth Edition, page 294) will
show how easily life may be destroyed by a blow on the head producing extravasation of blood.
9. For these reasons I am of opinion that the prisoner should be convicted of culpable homicide not amounting
to murder, and I would sentence him to transportation for seven years.
10. This order was accordingly passed by the Court.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query