Explain the Circumstances Under Which Culpable Homicide Amounts to Murder

Synopsis

• Introduction
• Meaning of Culpable Homicide (Section 101, BNS)
• Circumstances When Culpable Homicide Becomes Murder under BNS
  • (a) Intention to Cause Death
  • (b) Intention to Cause Bodily Injury Likely to Cause Death
  • (c) Intention to Cause a Particular Bodily Injury Sufficient in the Ordinary Course of Nature to Cause Death
  • (d) Knowledge that the Act is So Imminently Dangerous and Must Cause Death
• Important Case Laws
  • Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
  • State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976)
  • K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
• Conclusion

Introduction

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, all murders begin as culpable homicide, but only certain aggravated situations convert it into murder. To understand when culpable homicide becomes murder, one must examine the mental element (mens rea) described in Section 103 BNS.

Meaning of Culpable Homicide (Section 101, BNS)

Section 101 states that a person commits culpable homicide when he causes death:

• 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 his act is likely to cause death.

Circumstances Under Which Culpable Homicide Amounts to Murder (Section 103 BNS)

In the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the offense of culpable homicide is generally defined as the act of causing death with the intention or knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death. Murder is a graver form of culpable homicide.

According to Section 103 of the BNS, culpable homicide is murder when the act causing death is done with the following intents or knowledge:

1. Intention to Cause Death (Section 103, Clause 1): The act of causing death is murder if the offender commits the act with the intention of causing death.

• Example: A deliberately buys poison and administers it to B with the specific aim of killing B. A’s act, being done with a clear intention to cause death, is murder.

2. Intention to Cause Grave Bodily Injury (Section 103, Clause 2): The act is murder if it 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.

• Example: A knows that B has a serious heart condition and a weak skull. A hits B a heavy blow on the head, intending to cause a serious injury. Even if the immediate injury wasn’t intended to kill, A knew that, given B’s specific condition, that specific injury was highly likely to be fatal. Since death occurs, it is murder.

3. Knowledge of Inherent Danger (Section 103, Clause 3): The act is murder if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

• Example: A stabs B multiple times in vital organs like the heart or liver. Even if A claims they “only intended to injure,” the injury inflicted (stabbing the heart) is by its nature sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events. This intent coupled with the nature of the injury makes it murder.

4. Extreme Recklessness / Imminent Danger (Section 103, Clause 4): The act is murder if the person committing the act knows that it 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.

• Example: A, in a crowded public market, recklessly fires a powerful automatic weapon into the crowd, knowing fully well that such an act is almost certain to kill or seriously injure several people. A does this without any lawful excuse (like self-defense). If someone dies, it is murder due to the extreme and unwarranted recklessness that demonstrated a complete disregard for human life.

In essence, murder requires a higher degree of wickedness or malignity in the mind (mens rea) of the offender compared to simple culpable homicide. The BNS establishes this through the specific, heightened levels of intention and knowledge described above.

Important Case Laws

1) Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)

Facts

The accused Virsa Singh thrust a spear into the abdomen of the victim. The injury pierced the intestine and was medically found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused claimed that he had no intention to kill.

Issues

1. Whether the accused intended to inflict the particular injury on the victim?
2. Whether the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death?
3. Whether the offence amounted to murder under the principle now reflected in Section 103 BNS?

Analysis

The Supreme Court held that for murder, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to cause death. It is enough if:

• The accused intended to inflict that particular bodily injury, and
• That injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
  Here, the accused did intentionally inflict the spear wound, and the medical evidence proved that the injury was fatal by nature.

Judgment

The Court held the accused guilty of murder, as the elements necessary for what is now reflected in Section 103(c) BNS were satisfied.

2) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976)

Facts

The accused were involved in a group clash leading to the death of a person. The trial court convicted them for murder, but the issue arose as to whether the facts truly amounted to murder or only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Issues

1. What is the real legal distinction between culpable homicide and murder?
2. Whether the acts of the accused fell under the higher category (murder) or the lower category (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)?

Analysis

The Supreme Court clarified that culpable homicide is the genus and murder is the species.

• When the mental element (intention/knowledge) reaches the highest level described in provisions equivalent to Section 103 BNS, it is murder.
• Where intention/knowledge is present but of a lower degree, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
  The Court carefully examined the injuries, weapons, and circumstances and held that the intention to cause death was not clearly established.

Judgment

The Court reduced the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, applying reasoning similar to present Exception principles.

3) K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)

Facts

Commander Nanavati shot and killed his wife’s lover, Ahuja, after learning about the illicit affair. Nanavati argued that the act was committed under “grave and sudden provocation”.

Issues

1. Whether Nanavati acted under grave and sudden provocation?
2. Whether the offence should be treated as murder (Section 103 BNS equivalent) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the provocation exception?

Analysis

The Supreme Court held that “grave and sudden provocation” must be such that it temporarily deprives a reasonable person of self-control.
The Court noted:

• Nanavati left the house, went to his ship, took a gun, loaded it, and then drove to Ahuja’s residence.
• These steps showed cooling time and premeditation, not sudden loss of self-control.
  Therefore, the case did not fall under the exception.

Judgment

The Court held Nanavati guilty of murder, as the act was intentional and not protected by the provocation exception.