Difference Between Culpable Homicide and Murder

Homicide is a general term that refers to the act of killing another human being. However, not all homicides are considered crimes. Some homicides may be justified, such as in self-defense, or excused, such as in accidents. The law distinguishes between different types of homicides based on the intention, knowledge, and circumstances of the offender. Two of the most important and common types of homicides are culpable homicide and murder.

Culpable homicide and murder are both offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is the main criminal law of India. Culpable homicide is defined in Section 299 of IPC, while murder is defined in Section 300 of IPC. Both offences involve causing the death of a person with a certain state of mind. However, there are some key differences between them, which affect the legal consequences and punishments for the offenders.

The purpose of this article is to explain the difference between culpable homicide and murder, and to analyze the various factors and criteria that are used to distinguish them. The article will also provide some examples and case laws to illustrate the application and interpretation of these offences in the Indian context. Finally, the article will highlight some of the challenges and difficulties that arise in distinguishing between culpable homicide and murder, and suggest some possible solutions or recommendations to address them

Culpable Homicide

Culpable homicide is defined in Section 299 of IPC as causing the death of a person 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 the act is likely to cause death. Culpable homicide is the genus of which murder is the species. Culpable homicide may or may not amount to murder depending on the circumstances of the case.

• Explanation 1 of Section 299 clarifies that a person who causes the death of another 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, commits the offence of culpable homicide, even if the death is caused by the consent of the deceased. For example, if A administers poison to B with B’s consent, A is guilty of culpable homicide.
• Explanation 2 of Section 299 states that a person who causes the death of another by doing an act with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide, even if the act is not intended to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. For example, if A fires a gun at a crowd with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, A is guilty of culpable homicide, even if A does not intend to kill anyone.
• Explanation 3 of Section 299 defines the term “likely” as denoting such a high degree of probability that the event will follow according to the ordinary course of human affairs. For example, if A stabs B in the chest with a knife, A knows that the act is likely to cause B’s death, as stabbing in the chest is ordinarily fatal.

Murder

Murder is defined in Section 300 of IPC as culpable homicide with one of the following four conditions:

• Condition 1: The act is done with the intention of causing death.
• Condition 2: The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
• Condition 3: The act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
• Condition 4: The person committing the act knows 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, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC

There are five exceptions to Section 300 of IPC, which reduce the offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. These are:

• Exception 1: Grave and sudden provocation, which causes the offender to lose self-control and act in the heat of passion, provided that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender, and the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of his powers, or in the exercise of the right of private defence. For example, if A is insulted by B in a sudden quarrel, and A in a fit of rage kills B, A is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as A was provoked by B’s insult.
• Exception 2: Exceeding the right of private defence, either in the manner or the degree of force used, provided that the excess is not so great as to show a disproportionate or unreasonable use of force. For example, if A is attacked by B with a stick, and A in self-defence shoots B with a gun, A is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as A exceeded the right of private defence by using more force than necessary.
• Exception 3: Acting in good faith for the benefit of the person killed, without any intention to cause death, and without any intention to cause more harm than is necessary for the purpose, provided that the death is not caused by the consent of the person killed. For example, if A, a surgeon, performs a surgery on B, a patient, with B’s consent, and B dies due to unforeseen complications, A is not guilty of any offence, as A acted in good faith for B’s benefit, without any intention to cause death or more harm than necessary.
• Exception 4: Sudden fight, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel, without any premeditation or intention to kill, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. For example, if A and B, who are friends, get into a sudden fight over a trivial matter, and A in the heat of passion strikes B with a fist, and B dies due to a head injury, A is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as A acted in a sudden fight, without any intention to kill or act cruelly.
• Exception 5: Death caused by the consent of the person killed, who is above the age of 18 years, and whose consent is obtained freely and voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of the act. For example, if A and B, who are lovers, agree to commit suicide together, and A kills B with B’s consent, and then kills himself, A is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as B consented to his own death, with full knowledge of the act.

Difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder

The main difference between culpable homicide and murder lies in the degree of intention and knowledge involved in the act. The following criteria can be used to compare and contrast the two offences :

	Culpable Homicide	Murder
Intention: Intention is the purpose or aim of the act.	In culpable homicide, the intention may be to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or to do an act with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.	In murder, the intention must be to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death, or to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or to do an act so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Thus, murder requires a higher degree of intention than culpable homicide.
Knowledge: Knowledge is the awareness or consciousness of the act and its consequences.	In culpable homicide, the knowledge may be of the likelihood of causing death by the act.	In murder, the knowledge must be of the certainty or probability of causing death by the act. Thus, murder requires a higher degree of knowledge than culpable homicide.
Degree of harm: Degree of harm is the extent or severity of the injury caused by the act.	In culpable homicide, the degree of harm may be such as is likely to cause death, or such as the offender knows to be likely to cause death.	In murder, the degree of harm must be such as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or such as the offender knows to be likely to cause death, or such as is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Thus, murder requires a higher degree of harm than culpable homicide.
Punishment: Punishment is the penalty or sanction imposed by the law for the offence.	In culpable homicide, the punishment may vary depending on whether the offence amounts to murder or not. If the offence does not amount to murder, the punishment may be imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and fine, under Section 304 of IPC.	If the offence amounts to murder, the punishment may be death, or imprisonment for life, and fine, under Section 302 of IPC. Thus, murder carries a higher punishment than culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Relevant Case Laws and Illustrations

To support the argument that culpable homicide and murder are different offences based on the degree of intention, knowledge, harm, and punishment, we can refer to some relevant case laws and illustrations that illustrate the application of Section 299 and Section 300 of IPC in various scenarios.

One of the landmark cases that distinguished between culpable homicide and murder is State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya, where the Supreme Court held that culpable homicide is the genus and murder is the species, and that all murders are culpable homicides but not vice versa. The court also laid down the test to distinguish between the two offences, which is to determine whether the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or 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. If the answer is in the affirmative, the offence is murder, otherwise it is culpable homicide. In this case, the accused, who was a village headman, shot and killed the deceased, who was a political rival, with a gun. The court held that the accused was guilty of murder, as he had the intention of causing death and the knowledge of the likelihood of causing death by his act.

Another important case that dealt with the exception of grave and sudden provocation is K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that the accused, a naval officer, who shot and killed his wife’s lover after confronting him, was guilty of murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the exception of grave and sudden provocation did not apply in his case. The court observed that the accused had sufficient time to cool down and deliberate before committing the act, and that the act was done with the intention of causing death. The court also noted that the provocation was not sudden, as the accused had already suspected his wife’s infidelity and had planned to confront her lover. The court also rejected the plea of temporary insanity, as there was no evidence to prove that the accused was mentally unsound at the time of the act.

A case that illustrated the difference between the intention of causing bodily injury and the intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is Vasanth v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that the accused, who stabbed the deceased in the chest during a sudden quarrel, was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the act was done without any intention or knowledge of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The court observed that the accused had acted in the heat of passion, without premeditation, and that the injury inflicted by him was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as the deceased could have survived if he had received timely medical aid. The court also considered the fact that the accused had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and that he had expressed remorse and regret after the act.

A case that exemplified the exception of sudden fight is Kusa Majhi v. State of Orissa, where the Supreme Court held that the accused, who killed the deceased by hitting him with a stone on his head during a sudden fight over a trivial matter, was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the act was done in the heat of passion, without any intention to kill, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The court observed that the accused and the deceased were friends, and that the fight was not premeditated or planned, but arose out of a sudden quarrel over the distribution of fish. The court also noted that the accused had not used any deadly weapon, and that the injury caused by him was not so severe as to show a disproportionate or unreasonable use of force.