Difference Between Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder And Culpable Homicide Amounting To Murder
Difference between Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder and Culpable Homicide Amounting To Murder = =
INTRODUCTION === ===
The seemingly small difference between Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder and Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder could be the difference that changes the ratio decidendi of a case. It may be the turning point for the defence and has the potential to sway the judgment in their favor. The Indian Penal Code 1860 , under Chapter XVI, addresses these nuances as well as determines the unlawfulness of these crimes. Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting Human Life of the IPC covers the definition, meaning, and punishment of culpable homicide and murder. The thin but determining line of difference between culpable homicide and murder is founded upon the elements of; Intention and Knowledge. The measure of this distinction of intention and knowledge involved in the criminal act determines the degree of intention and knowledge. According to these elements and the interplay between them, it is possible to then determine the nature of the crime.
=== ===
NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER === ===
According to Section 299 of the IPC, “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.” Here the intention to cause death of another, to cause bodily injury so grievous that it could kill another person and with the knowledge that such act would likely cause death of a person, amounts to culpable homicide. The legislation further expands that even acceleration of death shall be deemed as “caused death”. An act that causes death by bodily injury is still unlawful even when death may have been prevented by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment. Further, causing of the death of a fetus inside the womb is not homicide, however, it would 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. The nature of intention is determined by the factors involved in the act. This is evidence that can be gathered from the kind of weapon used to cause death, the part of the body hit and its consequences , the amount of force employed and its impact, and the circumstances that led to the cause of death. On determining these factors, one can understand what the intention and knowledge of the person committing the act was. Another important factor is “Premeditation” as malice could be an important indicator. The nature of the mens rea that is accompanying the actus reus becomes vital in cases of culpable homicide.
=== ===
AMOUNTING TO MURDER === ===
Murder is an aggregated form of culpable homicide and can be understood as killing of a person by another person or a group of people who have the deliberate intent to take the life of the former. Section 300 of the IPC explains how this is different than the former section that defines Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. It states that death caused by an act done with the intention of doing so, if 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, if act is done with an 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 if 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, then the act would be culpable homicide amounting to murder. However the section also states certain exceptions and provisos. One of the main exceptions is “deprivation of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation” and is used to determine whether this provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Another commonly used exception is that of private / self-defence, which will be considered if the threat is imminent and the accused party acted in good faith. Culpable homicide is not murder when; the offender acts in advancement of public justice, or the act is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, or the deceased takes the risk of death with his own consent. If an offence does not contain one that qualifies as culpable homicide under the IPC definition of "murder," it does not constitute "murder." All killings are punishable by law, but not all homicides are murders. Section 301 of the IPC addresses the crime of culpable homicide by causing the death of someone other than the intended victim. According to this provision, the perpetrator would still be charged with culpable homicide.
INTERPRETATION === ===
The degree of responsibility makes a significant difference as the probability of death determines the section under which the offender will be punished if their actions "caused" the victim’s death. The interpretation of the sections determines whether the accused if convicted would be punished under Section 302 IPC for murder or under Section 304 IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is obvious that the prosecution will have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt as other elements of convicting the defendant must be fulfilled as well. After this, the offender if convicted for culpable homicide could be punished with imprisonment for life or for ten years with or without fine, or, may be punished with death or life imprisonment. Under the Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita 2023, Section 100 and 105 will deal with the former while Section 101 and 103 deal with the latter. To understand how the court has interpreted these statutes, it is important to look at cases like; Basdev vs. Pepsi, Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, Nathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, State of Rajasthan vs. Dhool Singh, State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Punnayya, Vasanth vs. State of Maharashtra, Reddy Sampath Kumar vs. State, and others. These case focus not only on the interpretation of the statute but they also expand on the differences in the two mentioned legislations and their interrelations. They also deal with the exceptions and the provisos given in the IPC. Case laws have always held an important place in Indian Legal History, thus are indispensable if one wishes to truly understand the nuances of the two offences.