Culpable Homicide.docx Assignment

8/17/2019 Culpable Homicide.docx Assignment

1/18

CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION P- 1

2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE P- 2

I. DEATH CAUSED OF PERSON OTHER THAN INTENDED P- 8

II. MURDER DISTINGUISHED FROM CULPABLE HOMICIDE P- 9

III. PRESUMPTION REGARDING INTENTION OR

KNOWLEDGE P- 9

IV.PROVOCATION CAUSED BY ACT P- 103. CASE STUDY P- 12

. CONCLUSION P- 1!

". BIBLIOGRAPHY P- 18

1


2/18

1. INTRODUCTION

To kill another human being is an inexcusable crime, whether done with the

intention of achieving the net result or not. The word homicide has been derivedfrom the latin word ‘homo’ which means a man, and ‘caedere’ which means to cut

or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing of a human being, by a human being. But

then, not all cases of homicide are culpable as all systems of law do distinguish

between lawful and unlawful homicide For instance, killing in self defense or in

pursuance of a lawful authority or by reason of mistake or fact, is not culpable.

ikewise, if death is caused by accident or misfortune, or while doing an act in

good faith and without any criminal intention for the benefit of the person killed,

the man is excused from criminal responsibility for homicide.

Further in some cases the accused may be punished for lesser offences !for e.g.

hurt" even though death has resulted, if the in#ury resulting in death though

voluntarily caused was not likely to cause death. For example, $ gives B a blow

and B, who suffers from an enlarged spleen of which $ was not aware, dies as a

result. $ is not guilty of %ulpable &omicide as his intention was merely to cause an

in#ury that was not likely to cause death.

't is in connection with with homicide that the maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi

mens sit rea’ has been fre(uently cited as stating the two fundamental re(uirements

of criminal liability.

2. CULPABLE HOMICIDE IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

2


3/18

%ulpable &omicide is the first kind of unlawful homicide as defined in )ection

*++, '..% it purports to define and explain as to when an act of causing death

constitutes %ulpable &omicide. The important elements are-

a" %ausing of death of a human being.

b" )uch death must have been caused by an act

i. /ith the intention of causing death0 or

ii. /ith the intention of causing such bodily in#ury as is likely to cause death0 or.

iii. /ith the knowledge that the doer is likely by such an act to cause death.

The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. 1nless one of the

mental states mentioned in ingredient is present, an act causing death cannot

amount to %ulpable &omicide. Thus where a constable who had loaded but

defective gun with him wanted to arrest an accused who was going on a bullock

cart by climbing on the cart and there was a scuffle between him and the accused

and in course of which the gun went off and killed the constable, it was held that

accused could not be held guilty of %ulpable &omicide.

C#$%&'()*+%,( F$ C&/*, H'#%#,

a" %auses 2eath- 'n order to hold a person liable under the impugned )ection there

must be causing of death of a human being as defined under )ection 34 of the

%ode. The causing of death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide as

stated in 5xplanation 6 appended to )ection *++, '..%. But the person would not

be set free. &e would be punishable for causing miscarriage either under )ection

67* or 678 '..% depending on the gravity of the in#ury. The act of causing death

amounts to %ulpable &omicide if any part of that child has been brought forth,

3


4/18

though the child may not have breathed or been completely born. The clause

‘though the child may not have breathed’ suggests that a child may be born alive,

though it may not breath !respire" , or it may respire so imperfectly that it may be

difficult to obtain clear proof that respiration takes place. %ausing of death must be

of a living human being which means a living man, woman, child and at least

partially an infant under delivery or #ust delivered.

b" By 2oing $n $ct /ith The 'ntention 9f %ausing 2eath- 2eath may be caused

by a hundred and one means, such as by poisoning, drowning, striking, beating and

so on and so forth. $s explained under )ection 6*, '..% the word ‘act’ has been

given a wider meaning in the %ode in as much as it includes not only an act of

commission, but illegal omissions as well and the word ‘illegal’ is applicable to

everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which is

prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for civil action !s.36". Therefore

death caused by illegal omission will amount to %ulpable &omicide.

i. 2eath caused by effect of words on imaginations or passions- The authors of the %ode observe - : The reasonable course, in our opinion , is to consider speaking

as an act, and to treat $ as guilty of voluntary %ulpable &omicide, if by speaking

he has voluntarily caused ;’s death, whether his words operated circuitously by

inducing ; to swallow a poison or throwing ; into convulsions.<

c" /ith The 'ntention 9f %ausing )uch Bodily 'n#ury as is likely to cause death- .

The word ‘intention’ in clause !a" to )ection *++, '..% has been used in its

ordinary sense, i.e., volitional act done without being able to forsee the

conse(uence with certitude. The connection between the ‘act’ and the death caused

thereby must be direct and distinct0 and though not immediate it must not be too

4


5/18

remote. 'f the nature of the connection between the act and the death is in itself

obscure, or if it is obscured by the action of concurrent causes, or if the connection

is broken by the intervention of subse(uent causes, or if the interval of time

between death and the act is too long, the above condition is not fulfilled. /here a

constable fired five shots in succession at another constable resulting in his death,

it was held that it would be native to suggest that he had neither intention to kill

nor any knowledge that in#uries sufficient to kill in ordinary course of nature would

not follow. &is acts s(uarely fell in clauses *,6 and 3 of s.6==, '..% i.e %ulpable

&omicide amounting to murder.

d" /ith the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death - ‘>nowledge’ is

a strong word and imports ceratinity and not merely a probability.'f the death is

caused under circumstances specified under )ection ?=, the person causing the

death will be exonerated under that )ection. But, if it is caused in doing an

unlawful act, the (uestion arises whether he should be punished for causing it. The

%ode says that when a person engaged in the commission of an offence, without

any addition on account of such accidental death. The offence of %ulpable&omicide supposes an intention, or knowledge of likelihood of causing death. 'n

the absence of such intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be

grievous hurt, or simple hurt. 't is only where death is attributed to an in#ury which

the offender did not know would endanger life would be likely to cause death and

which in normal conditions would not do so notwithstanding death being caused,

that the offence will not be %ulpable &omicide but grievous or simple hurt. 5very

such case depends upon the existence of abnormal conditions unkown to the

person who inflicts in#ury. 9nce it is established that an act was a deliberate acct

and not the result of accident or rashness or negligence, it obvious that the offence

would be %ulpable &omicide.

5


6/18

e" 2eath %aused of erson 9ther Than 'ntended- To attract the provisions of this

)ection it suffices if the death of a human being is caused whether the person was

intended to be killed or not. For instance, B with the intention of killing $ in order

to obtain the insured amount gave him some sweets mixed with poison. The

intended victim ate some of the sweets and threw the rest away which were picked

up by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. 't was held that B as liable

for murder of the children though he intended to kill only $.

f" 2eath %aused 'nadvertently without 'ntention /hile 2oing an 1nlawful $ct- 't

has been clearly stated in '..% that a person will not be liable for %ulpable

&omicide, if he causes the death of a person while doing an unlawful act, provided

he did not intend to kill or cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to

have that effect. 9n the other hand, under 5nglish law, if a person whilst

committing an unlawful act accidently kills another, he would be liable for

manslaughter or murder according to whether his act constituted a felony or

misdemeanour.

S,%)#+ 299 )4, I+#*+ P,+* %, ()*),( )4, 5#+6

/ho ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with

the intention of causing such bodily in#ury 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.

T4, I&()$*)#+( )4*) 5 *$, *( 5(

!a" $ lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of there by causing death, or

with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. ; believing the

6


7/18

ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. $ has committed the offence of

culpable homicide.

!b" $ knows ; to be behind a bush. B does not know it $, intending to cause, or

knowing it to be likely to cause ;@s death, induces B fires and kills ;. &ere B may

be guilty of no offence0 but $ has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

!c" $, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a

bush0 $ not knowing that he was there. &ere, although $ was doing an unlawful

act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to

cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

The explanations given thereafter are as follows,

Explanation 1

$ person who causes bodily in#ury to another who is labouring under a disorder,

disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be

deemed to have caused his death.

5xplanation *

7


8/18

/here death is caused by bodily in#ury, the person who causes such bodily in#ury

shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies

and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

5xplanation 6

The causing of the death of child in the mother@s womb is not homicide. But it may

amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that

child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been

completely born.

F5, 7 )4, %'',+)( + )4, (*# (,%)#+

I. DEATH CAUSED OF PERSON OTHER THAN INTENDED

The accused, with the intention of killing $ or whose life he had taken out

considerable insurance without latter’s knowledge, in order to obtain the insured

amount gave him some sweets mixed with a well known poison like arsenic. The

intended victim ate some of the sweets and threw the rest away which were picked

up by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. 't was held that the

accused was liable for the murder of the children though he intended only to kill $0

ublic rosecutor v. Aushunooru )uryanarayana Aoorty7.

1 (1942) 2 MWN 136: (1912) 13 Cr LJ 145

8


9/18

II. MURDER DISTINGUISHED FROM CULPABLE HOMICIDE

:%ulpable homicide< is genus, and :murder< is the specie. $ll :murder< are

culpable homicide but not viceversa0 arasingh %hallan v. )tate of 9rissa*.

III. PRESUMPTION REGARDING INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE

The accused struck his wife a violent blow on the head with the plougshare which

rendered her unconscious and hanged his wife soon afterwards under the

impression that she was already dead intending to create false evidence as to the

cause of the death and to conceal his own crime. 't was held that the intention of

the accused must be #udged not in the light of the actual circumstances, but in the

light of what he supposed to be the circumstances. &ence, the accused cannot be

convicted either of murder or culpable homicide, he could of course be punished

both for his original assault on his wife and for his attempt to create fake evidence

by hanging her0 alani Caindan v. 5mperor, !7+7+" 3* Aad 83D.

IV. PROVOCATION CAUSED BY ACT

2 (1997) 2 Crime 78 (!ri)

9


10/18

The assault for murder cannot be said to be sudden and without meditation as the

deceased was not armed0 )tate of Aaharashtra v. >rishna Aurti aEmipatti aidu6.

&omicide is the killing of a &uman being by a &uman being 3. 't may either be

lawful or unlawful. awful &omicide includes several cases falling under %hapter

' of the 'ndian enal %ode dealing with the general exceptions.

H'#%#, #( )4, 5#+6 #+0

• Aurder 8

• %ulpable &omicide not amounting to Aurder 4

• %ausing death by negligenceD

• )uicide?

T4, ,((,+)#*( %&/*, 4'#%#, *$, *( 5(,

• %ausing of death of a &uman being0

• )uch death must have been caused by doing an $ct0

• The $ct must have been done,

7. /ith the intention of causing death of a &uman being0

*. /ith the intention of causing such bodily in#ury as is likely to cause death0or

6. /ith the knowledge that the doer is likely, by such act, to cause death.

3 "#$ 1981 %C 617: (1981) %C Cr $ 398: (1981) Cr LJ 9: (1981) %CC (Cr) 354

4 %tep&en' iet o* Criminal La+

5 %e,tion 3-2

6 %e,tion 3-4

7 %e,tion 3-4"

8 %e,tion 3-5 . e,tion 3-6

1-


11/18

't is imperative to understand the section of the '% better, it is imperative on my

part to look at this section in phrases,

• /hoever causes 2eath G 2eath means the death of a &uman being. 't does

not include the death of an unborn child. But in view of 5xplanation 6 given

in the said section, it may amount to culpable homicide to cause death of a

living child if any part of the child has been brought forth, though the child

may not have breathed or been completely born. &owever, it is not necessary

that the person whose death has been caused must be the very person

accused intended to kill+. The offence of %ulpable &omicide is complete as

soon as any person is killed by the accused whose intention is to either cause

death or with the knowledge that he was likely, by such act, to cause death.

• By doing an act G This includes the acts mentioned earlier and also includes

omission. $n omission is illegal if it be an offence, if it be a breach of some

direction of law, or if it be such a wrong as would be a good ground for a

civil action. Therefore, death caused by illegal omission will also amount to

culpable homicide.

• 'ntention to cause death G 'ntention means the expectation of the

conse(uence in (uestion. /hen a man is charged with doing the act, of

which the probable conse(uences may be highly in#urious, the intention is an

inference of law resulting from doing an $ct7=. 'ntention is to be inferred

from the acts of the accused and the circumstances of the case 77. Thus,

9 %e,tion 3-1

1- " per Lor/ Ellen0or&' CJ in ixon (1814) 3 M . % 11' 15

11 &*ar' (1887) $ No 62 o* 1882

11


12/18

deliberately firing by a loaded gun at one leads to interference that the

intention was to cause death.

• /ith intention of causing such bodily in#ury as is likely to cause death G The

intention of the offender may not be to cause death, it would be sufficient if he intended to cause such bodily in#ury which was likely to cause death. The

connection between the act and the death caused should be direct and

distinct0 and though not immediate, it must not be too remote. 'f the

connection is too obscure with many intervening factors in the matter, or if

the time gap between the act and the death is too long, the above connection

is not fulfilled.

$n intention also inclides foresight of certainity. $ conse(uence is deemed to be

intended though it is not desired when it is foreseen as substantially certain.

3. CASE STUDY

A))$* . S)*),12

'n this case, the accused detected a theft being carried out in his house0 he

apprehended the thief and beat him so severely that later, upon detailed

investigation there were discovered 9ne &undred and fortyone marks of separate

blows on the body of the victim. )everal of his ribs were broken and he died. $s

the death that was caused was a direct conse(uence of the act of the accused, he

was convicted under sec. 6=3 of the 'ndian enal code. &is actions were also seen

to be in conformation with the ideals laid down in sec. *++ as while beating up

12 (1891) $ No 9 o* 1891

12


13/18

another person so brutally, he must have known that his act was likely to cause

death.

• M. I(* M. . S)*),13

The act that caused death was a direct outcome of a heated conversation between

the accused and the deceased and there was no evidence that the accused was the

one who delivered the first blow in the following struggle, thus it was held that this

act would only amount to %ulpable &omicide and not murder.

M&$,$ *+ C&/*, H'#%#, #()#+6(4,

The distinction between Aurder !defined under )ection 6==" and culpable

homicide !defined under )ection *++" are two offences under the 'ndian enal

%ode the distinction between which has always been perplexing to the law

students. For their benefit, we are referring to a recently reported decision of the

)upreme %ourt wherein these principles have been explained in extension as

under0

)ection *++ and )ection 6== of '% deals with the definition of culpable homicide

and murder respectively. )ection *++ defines culpable homicide as the act of

causing death0

!i" with the intention of causing death or

:##; with the intention of causing such bodily in#ury as is likely to cause death

or

:###; with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.

The bare reading of the section makes it crystal clear that the first and the second

clause of the section refer to intention apart from the knowledge and the third

13 "#$ 1979 %C 1434

13


14/18

clause refers to knowledge alone and not intention. Both the expression HintentH

and HknowledgeH postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude which is of

different degrees. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. mental attitude

towards the conse(uences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. 'f that is

caused in any of the aforesaid three circumstances, the offence of culpable

homicide is said to have been committed. )ection 6== '%, however, deals with

murder although there is no clear definition of murder provided in )ection 6==

'%. 't has been repeatedly held by this %ourt that culpable homicide is the genus

and murder is species and that all murders are culpable homicide but not vice

versa. )ection 6== '% further provides for the exceptions which will constitute

culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under )ection 6=3.

/hen and if there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of

)ection 6=3 art ' and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to

cause murder and bodily in#ury, then the same would be a case of )ection 6=3 art

''. The aforesaid distinction between an act amounting to murder and an act not

amounting to murder has been brought out in the numerous decisions of this %ourt.

S)*), A.P. . R*7**$*/& P&++*77*1

The %ourt observed as follows at page 6?4-H7*. 'n the scheme of the enal %ode,

Hculpable homicidesH is genus and HmurderHits specie. $ll HmurderH is Hculpable

homicideH but not viceversa. )peaking generally, Hculpable homicideH sans

Hspecial characteristics of murderH, is Hculpable homicide not amounting to

murderH. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this

generic offence, the %ode practically recognises three degrees of culpable

14 , !7+D4" 3 )%% 6?*

14


15/18

homicide. The first is what may be called, Hculpable homicide of the first degreeH.

This is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in )ection 6== as

HmurderH. The second may be termed as Hculpable homicide of the second degreeH.

This is punishable under the first part of)ection 6=3. Then, there is Hculpable

homicide of the third degreeH. This is thelowest type of culpable homicide and the

punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for

the three grades. %ulpable homicideof this degree is punishable under the second

part of )ection 6=3.

A& W*4,, K4*+ . S)*), A.P. 1"

%lause !b" of )ection *++ corresponds with clauses !*" and !6" of )ection 6==.

The distinguishing feature of the mens rea re(uisite under clause !*" 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. 't is noteworthy that the Hintention to cause deathH is not an

essential re(uirement of clause !*". 9nly the intention of causing the bodily

in#ury coupled with the offender@s knowledge of the likelihood of such in#ury

causing the death of the particular victim is sufficient to bring the killing within

the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause !*" is borne out by 'llustration !b"

appended to )ection 6==.73. %lause !b" of )ection *++ does not postulate any

such knowledge on the part of the offender. 'nstances of cases falling under

15 (2--2) 7 %CC 175

15


16/18

clause !*" of )ection 6== can be where the assailant causes death by a fistblow

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.

A&6&()#+, S**+4* . S)*), K*$+*)**1


17/18

. CONCLUSION

The idea of %ulpable &omicide is important to be incorporated in the '% as it is

imperative for the recognition to be given to those who might have caused the

death of another by their act, but might not have intended the same. There is a

difference between those who commit such acts with existent knowledge of what

they are doing and those who don’t. 'n recogniEing this, the '% provides for much

better #ustice.

". B##6$*/47

17


18/18

T,=) + )4, I+#*+ P,+* C, > K. D. G*&$

T4, I+#*+ P,+* C, > R*)*+* ? D4#$*@*

C'',+)*$7 + )4, I+#*+ P,+* C, > K.D. G*&$

C'',+)*$7 + )4, I+#*+ P,+* C, > R*)*+* *+ D4#$*@*

555.,6*(,$#%,(#+#*.%'

555.#+#*+*+++.%'

555.*#+1.%'

• 555.*5%)/&(.%'

18
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/http://www.indiankannon.com/http://www.vakilno1.com/http://www.indiankannon.com/http://www.vakilno1.com/http://www.legalservicesindia.com/

Documents

Culpable Homicide.docx Assignment