A Comparative Legal Analysis of Culpable Homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code

Author Details :-

Ayushi Mendhiratta
(UILS, Punjab University)

A Comparative Legal Analysis of Culpable Homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 100 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Assessing the Evolution of Judicial Interpretation and Legislative Intent.

ABSTRACT

In India, the primordial INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC 1860) is replaced by a remarkable legal code i.e. THE BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023. The new legal code aimed to provide a streamlined structure to enhance justice under the contemporary legal system. It aims to ensure that justice is delivered coherently.

Thus, the article delves into the comparative legal analysis of culpable Homicide under Section 299 of IPC 1860 and Section 100 Of BNS 2023. It further assesses the evolution of judicial interpretation with regard to culpable homicide. In addition to this, the article displays a brief distinction between culpable homicide and murder along with certain exceptions or provisions under which culpable homicide does not amount to murder inclusive of grave and sudden provocation, accident, mistake of fact, fight without premeditation, etc. Lastly, it talks about relevant differences in punishment as per sec 105 of BNS And sec 304 of IPC, followed up by a concluding statement.

KEYWORDS: – CULPABLE HOMICIDE, BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA, INDIAN PENAL CODE, INTENTION, KNOWLEDGE, MURDER, PUNISHMENT.

INTRODUCTION

To embark upon, Article 21 (protection of personal life and liberty) is considered an ombudsman of individual’s rights. Conceivably, this fundamental right is made accessible to the citizens and the foreigners alike. As a result, it can only be snatched away when a person commits a crime against the state as defined in Article 12 of the Indian constitution. Thereupon, crimes particularly ‘culpable homicide and murder’ which affects the body of a human and subsequently awarded with the greatest number of punishments are mentioned in chapter XVI Of the Indian Penal Code 1860, in contrast to chapter VI of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.

The word ‘homicide’ is procured from a Latin word: ‘HOMO’ which purports a man and ‘CIDE’ insinuating killing or cutting. Thus, Homicide refers to the killing of a person by another person. Every homicide is not culpable or is not considered a crime. Consequently, this word is bifurcated into lawful and unlawful homicide.

This article lays down a comparative legal analysis of culpable homicide under section 299 of IPC,1860, and section 100 of BNS,2023 in addition to the evolution of judicial interpretations concerning culpable homicide and murder.

COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS BETWEEN SEC 299 OF IPC AND SEC 100 OF BNS 2023.

The word culpable originated from the Latin ‘culpe’, which denotes Punishment. There are distinct levels of culpability allocated to certain acts which makes the offense of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder distinguished from each other.

Culpable homicide is a ‘genus’ and murder is a ‘specie’. Accordingly, Culpable homicide is a wider term that can amount to murder if it fulfills the essentials of murder as defined in sec 101 of BNS 2023.

To ingeminate, “every murder is a culpable homicide but every culpable homicide does not amount to murder”. Making it more intelligible, culpable homicide amounting to murder requires a special kind of Mens Rea exclusive of death caused by provocation, right to self-defense, public servant acting in good faith to assert justice, in the heat of passion or sudden quarrel, a person above 18 years of age who suffers or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

SEC 100 OF BNS 2023	SEC 299 OF IPC 1860
100. 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 offense of culpable homicide.	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 offense of culpable homicide.

ESSENTIALS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE: –

Causing of death of a living human being
Death is emanated by doing an act
The act must be done:
With the intention of causing the death of the person
with the intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death
with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death by the performance of such an act.

APPREHENSION OF ESSENTIALS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE WITH THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS: –

CAUSING OF DEATH:

The connotation of death refers to the death of a living human being. Hypothesizing, the death of an unborn child will not be treated as the offense of culpable homicide. Nevertheless, the death of a living child whose any part of the body has been brought forth even though the child never breathed or was not completely born will be contemplated as the offense of culpable homicide.
The death must be the approximate cause of the violence incurred by the accused.
In the case of Shoba vs Emperor (1935) oud 446, it was held that there should be no change in the circumstances of the event that led to the death of the person. The death of the person should have a direct link with violence or the act that resulted in death.
In the case of Rama Nand vs the State of Himachal Pradesh (1981), it was declared that the mere recovery of the dead body of the victim cannot be solely considered as evidence to prove culpable homicide. It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the person alleged to have been killed.
In the case of Suryamani Singh vs the state of UP (2000), After being cognizant of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of Doubt can be offered to the accused if the prosecution is not able to prove firm and safe evidence.

DOING OF AN ACT

The word act has wider implications under IPC AND BNS Respectively. Doing an act to be constituted as a crime can be deduced from the commission of an offense or the illegal omission.
To illustrate: – A person ‘z’ being appointed as a certified guardian refuses to provide ‘v’ with the medical treatment for an injury or infection that was likely to cause death. Here, ‘z’ will be responsible for the death of ‘v’ as he failed to fulfill his duty constituted by law on him.

INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH

Intention indicates the performance of a voluntary act by voluntary means to attain the desired result. The intention of a person to authorize a crime can be inflicted by the act which he or she has done or, the foreseeable certain consequences of the act coupled with the nature of the weapon used, date and time of the offenses in addition to circumstances which prompted such offense.
To exemplify: – the accused inflicted an injury on the pivotal organ of a human body with a desirable dangerous weapon. Thus, his intention to kill the person or to cause death can be inflicted in such a scenario. (murder)
A person giving a blow or fist to the vital organ which is likely to cause death in the heat of the moment. (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)

WITH THE INTENTION OF CAUSING BODILY INJURY WHICH IS LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH:

It suffices that the intention is there to cause bodily injury only and ultimately death. Nevertheless, the injury is of such nature that would likely be the cause of the death.
The relation between the act done and the death caused should have a direct and proximate link. If no death is caused the person cannot be charged under the offense as delineated.
In the case of King vs Aung Nyug (1940), the court proclaimed that it is adequate that though the consequences of injury are not foreseeable however, the injury is of such nature that it is likely to cause death.
In the case of Virsa vs the State of Punjab (1969), the court gave the verdict it is impotent to convict a person based on the presence of injury that is likely to cause death except when the prosecution established evidence of the intention of the accused to inflict such injury.
In the case of Gurdilal Singh vs State of Punjab (2011), the accused were carrying Gandasi and Dangs which were the weapons used commonly by villagers. A fight occurred when the deceased refused to construct a drain as appealed by the accused.
The accused gave a blow with the weapon leading to injuries which resulted in death.
The accused were charged under section 304 of IPC as they did not have any premeditated plan nor they intended to kill the person.

WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH AN ACT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH: –

The word knowledge implies that the person is aware of the consequences of the act performed but there is no certain intention to cause death or bodily injury to a person that is likely to cause death. Intermittently, not taking due care and caution about the consequences of the act inflicts the knowledge of the person of the act likely to cause death.
To instantiate, ‘A’ caused the death of the person by driving negligently and rashly on the road after the voluntary consumption of alcohol.
In the case of Alister Anthony Pariera vs the state of Maharashtra (2012), there is no deterrent in law to charge a person simultaneously for the offense under sec 304 (II) for culpable homicide in addition to sections 337 and 338 IPC 1860 for being rash and negligent while driving.
To distinguish between intention and knowledge, majorly in the case of knowledge mind is a passive receipt of the consequences of the act if performed whilst intention can be proved after the act has been performed. The mind is an active recipient and desires a particular consequence of the act being accomplished.
If the accused knows the victim was suffering from a disease or such bodily infirmity and by stimulating or expediting the death of the person, shall be deemed to cause the death.
On the contrary, if the accused is unaware of the ailing process of the deceased and causes such bodily injury that in ordinary course is not likely to cause death, cannot be charged under sec 100 or 101 of BNS 2023.

EXCEPTIONS OR PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH CULPABLE HOMICIDE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MURDER UNDER SEC 300 OF IPC AND SEC 101 OF BNS RESPECTIVELY:

The exceptions which are asserted below can be used as a defense by the accused when the results of the act are not in consonance with the intentions of the accused alone, nonetheless, it was asserted from the actions and reactions of the deceased leading to sudden provocation or heat of the moment which resulted in a quarrel.

ACT DONE WITH GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION

The act does not lead to culpable homicide if the death is caused by a grave or sudden provocation by the act of the deceased.
Resultantly, the act shall not be done by voluntary provocation as mitigating circumstances to kill or cause injury. Moreover, the provocation must not be of such nature as given by an officer acting lawfully and obediently exercising his or her duty in good faith. In addition, the provocation must not be the result of a lawful exercise of private defence.
For instance, ‘H’ gave ‘Z’ a blow on his face, and getting provoked by the act of ‘H’, Z hit him with a knife on his chest which resulted in ‘H’ death. Here ‘z’ is liable for culpable homicide and not the offense of murder.
In the case of Murali vs, the state of Tamil Nadu (2001), the accused pleaded for the right of private defence when he was the one who was more aggressive than the deceased. The use of force in the case of private defence must be consonant with the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, The liability and conviction of the accused could not be set aside.

RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE

If a person exceeds his powers given by law to exercise the right of private defense, thereby causing hurt or harm to anyone without any premeditation or willful planning, will be convicted under culpable homicide only if has resoluteness to self-defense.
To demonstrate, ‘w’ was running aggressively towards ‘r’ with a sword is his hand. Out of apprehension of being killed, ‘r’ shot him with a pistol which induced the death of ‘w’.

DEATH CAUSED IN EXERCISE OF LEGAL POWER

If an officer whilst exercising his duty exceeds the power derived by him from law in a faithful manner, he will be charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In the case of Dukhi Singh vs state of UP (1955), the accused being posted as the Railway protection officer shot at the deceased as he was trying to elude arrest. The officer was given protection under this exception.

ENGAGING IN SUDDEN FIGHT WITHOUT PREMEDITATION OR INTENTION TO KILL

In the case of Samuthram v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997), the court pronounced that injuries that resulted in the death of the person were ramifications of the fight due to the sudden heat of passion. The person was convicted under sec 304(ii) IPC.
In a recent case Sri Ram Sharma V. State of Jharkhand (2023), Jharkhand high court set aside the murder conviction of a man who was accused of the death of his uncle by hitting him with a hammer.
It was observed that the death was caused without any premeditation or intention to kill.

FREE CONSENT

A person above 18 years of age who voluntarily gives his assent to death or takes the risk of death.
TO elucidate, ‘Y’ a man aged 40 asked his servant to kill him with a poisonous substance. Here servant will not be charged with murder.

BRIEF DISTINCTION BETWEEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER AS PER SEC 105 AND SEC 104 BNS 2023 (RELATING WITH SEC 304 AND 302 OF IPC 1860)

The substantial difference between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is the degree of intention to cause death. To constitute a crime under the offense of murder the prosecution must establish a clear and distinct intention to kill a person. Consequently, murder involves a ‘specific Intent’ exclusive of sudden and grave provocation, sudden fight or quarrel, etc. Further, murder incorporates a well-planned act, in contrast, culpable homicide is generally not a result of a premeditated act. In addition to this, murder encompasses a severe punishment which comprises a penalty of up to life imprisonment or death. Opposingly, punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is less severe. It usually ranges from a minimum punishment of 5 years which can extend up to 10 years along with the imposition of fine.

In the case of Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra the accused in a tipsy state of mind was engaged in a sudden fight with his pregnant wife. As a result, he poured kerosene on her which expedited 98% of the injuries on her. She accused him of her death in her dying declaration. The court gave a ruling that while the accused had knowledge of his actions, however, he did not intend to kill his wife.
This case has greater emphasis in the interpretation of sec 105 of BNS 2023 slumbering difference between intention and knowledge.
In the case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, the accused posted as a naval officer was charged with shooting his wife’s lover. The SC ruled out that Nanavati had premeditated the plan to kill the victim. Resultantly, he was convicted under sec 302 of IPC.
In the case of Tularam v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018), a brawl took place between 2 persons which was further joined by family members. In the rage of this quarrel, the accused hit the person with a Ballam in his chest which led to injuries paramount to the death of the person. The accused was charged under sec 304 IPC.
In the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022), the accused was convicted for the murder of his brother who was an alcoholic. The court observed that the death of the deceased was caused by the heat of the moment and provocation. Consequently, the accused went out of his control and killed his brother.

The conviction was permuted to the offense under sec 304 IPC by Hon’ble SC.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PUNISHMENT OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE UNDER SEC 105 OF BNS AND 304 OF IPC.

PUNISHMENT UNDER SEC 105 BNS

PUNISHMENT UNDER SEC 304 IPC

(INTENTIONAL ACT)- accused is punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) for a term not less than five years, which may extend to ten years, along with a fine if the act which caused death is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.(knowledge-based act)- accused is convicted with Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, along with a fine 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.

(INTENTIONAL ACT) – accused is punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, along with a fine if the act that caused the death is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.(knowledge-based acts)- accused is convicted with Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with a 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.

Punishment for intentional acts under IPC has a broader spectrum as it does not incorporate in its definition the minimum number of punishments to be awarded. In contrast, BNS permuted minimum punishment for the term of 5 years in case of intentional acts.
Moreover, in the case of knowledge-based acts the imposition of a fine is mandatory under BNS. Opposingly, the proviso of a fine under IPC is discretionary.
Thus, punishment under BNS is more adverse than IPC for the offense of culpable homicide. IPC has a limberness while granting punishment to the accused.

CONCLUSION

To deduce, the article lays down a comparative legal analysis of culpable homicide under IPC AND BNS. It signifies that the level of knowledge and intention plays a significant and remarkable role in convicting a person under murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The level of punishment is distinct and clear under the new legal code i.e. The BNS 2023. It lays down a minimum imprisonment of 5 years if the act to cause death or likely to cause death is done with intention. However, culpable homicide leads to murder if it is proved that the person had the ‘specific intention or means rea’ to kill or cause harm to the person.

REFERENCES: – “Indian Penal Code – Chapter 8 – Culpable Homicide and Murder”

Gn AdvP, “Section 105 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Culpable Homicide vs. Murder” (EzyLegal, July 3, 2024)

Kapoor V, “Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – iPleaders” (iPleaders, January 24, 2024)

Singh B and Law L, “Live Law” Live Law (June 10, 2024)