Government of India
Bare Act As Per The Government of India

What is Culpable Homicide?

Synopsis

Introduction

The term homicide simply means the killing of a person by another person. This act can be unlawful or lawful (e.g., in self-defence, by judicial order). Culpable homicide means causing the death of a person by doing an act that is wrongful, blameworthy, and done with intention or knowledge.

Definition of Culpable Homicide

Section 100 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines Culpable Homicide as: 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.

Examples of Culpable Homicide

(a) Alays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A 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.

(d) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.

(e) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health.

But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.

(f) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.

(g) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.

Essential Ingredients

For an act to be Culpable Homicide, the following two elements must be present:

  1. Actus Reus (Guilty act): The death of a human being must be caused.
  2. Mens Rea (The criminal intent/knowledge): This act must be done with one of the following three mental states:
    • Intention to cause death: The accused consciously desires the death of the person.
    • Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death: The accused intends a specific injury, and that injury is probable enough to result in death.
    • Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death: The accused knows that their act is likely to cause death, even if they don’t necessarily intend to cause death. This is about a high probability or likelihood.

Important Note: Culpable Homicide vs. Murder

This is the most critical distinction in Indian criminal law:

If the act of Culpable Homicide meets a higher degree of probability or certainty of causing death (as defined in BNS Section 101), it becomes Murder.

Conversely, if an act falls under the definition of Murder but is covered by one of the specific Exceptions (e.g., Grave and Sudden Provocation, Exceeding Right of Private Defence), it is reduced to Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder.

Important Case Laws

1) Reg v. Govinda (1876) 1 Bom HCR 188

Facts

The accused Govinda kicked his wife and hit her with his fist during a quarrel. She fell, and her head struck the ground, causing internal brain haemorrhage. She died shortly after. There was no intention to kill, and the quarrel happened suddenly.

Issues

  1. Whether the act of the accused amounted to murder under Section 300 IPC?
  2. Or whether it was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 IPC?

Analysis

Judgment

The court held that the act was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 IPC. The accused was convicted under Section 304 IPC and given a lesser punishment.

2) K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) AIR 1962 SC 605

Facts

Naval officer Nanavati discovered his wife’s illicit relationship with Prem Ahuja. In a highly emotional state, he confronted Ahuja, and during the argument, he shot him dead. Nanavati claimed that the gun went off accidentally.

Issues

  1. Whether the killing was murder (Section 300 IPC)?
  2. Whether Nanavati acted under grave and sudden provocation, reducing it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Exception 1 to Section 300)?
  3. Whether the shooting was accidental?

Analysis

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the case amounted to murder, not culpable homicide.
Nanavati was convicted under Section 302 IPC.

3) Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958) AIR 1958 SC 465

Facts

The accused Virsa Singh thrust a spear into the abdomen of the victim during a fight. The injury was deep, intended to be inflicted at a vital part, and the victim died.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused intended to cause the particular injury?
  2. Whether this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (Clause 3 of Section 300 IPC)?
  3. Whether the case was murder or culpable homicide?

Analysis

The Supreme Court laid down a four-step test:

  1. A bodily injury must be present.
  2. The injury must be intentionally inflicted.
  3. The injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
  4. If these are satisfied, it amounts to murder under Section 300 Thirdly—even if the accused did not intend to kill.

In this case:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that it was murder under Section 300 Thirdly, punishable under Section 302 IPC.
This case is a leading authority explaining how culpable homicide becomes murder based on the nature of injury.