What is Culpable Homicide?

Synopsis

• Introduction to Homicide
• Definition of Culpable Homicide
• Essential Ingredients
• Examples
• Important Note: Culpable Homicide vs. Murder
• Important Case Laws
  • Reg v. Govinda (1876) 1 Bom HCR 188
  • K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) AIR 1962 SC 605
  • Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958) AIR 1958 SC 465

Introduction

The term Homicide simply means the killing of a human being by another human being. 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

The corresponding provision is found under Section 100 of the BNS and under 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.”

Essential Ingredients

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

1. Actus Reus (The physical 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.

Examples

The bare acts (both IPC and BNS) provide clear illustrations to explain the boundaries of this offence.

Example 1: ‘A’ covers a deep pit with thin sticks and grass, intending or knowing it is likely to cause death. ‘Z’, believing the ground is firm, treads on it, falls in, and is killed. A has committed Culpable Homicide. This falls under the ‘intention to cause death’ or ‘knowledge of likely death’ clause.

Example 2: ‘A’ knows ‘Z’ is behind a bush. ‘B’ does not know this. ‘A’, intending to cause ‘Z’s death (or knowing it to be likely), induces ‘B’ to fire at the bush. ‘B’ fires and kills ‘Z’. A has committed Culpable Homicide. ‘A’ is the perpetrator because of the requisite intention/knowledge, while ‘B’ may be guilty of no offence as they lacked the criminal intent.

Example 3: ‘A’ gives a minor injury to ‘B’, who is already suffering from a severe heart condition. The injury, though minor, accelerates ‘B’s death due to the pre-existing condition. A is deemed to have caused B’s death and is guilty of Culpable Homicide, as accelerating the death of a sick or infirm person is considered causing their death.

Example 4: A throws a stone at B during an argument, targeting the head. He knows that the stone may cause serious injury likely to cause death. B dies. This is culpable homicide, because A had knowledge.

Example 5: A beats B with a stick, intending to cause injury but not to kill. However, the injury was such that it was likely to cause death. B dies. This is culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC / 107 BNS).

Example 6: A shoots in the air during a festival, knowing people are standing nearby. A bullet hits a person and causes death. A had knowledge, not intention. It is culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC / Section 105 BNS.

Example 7: During a sudden fight, A pushes B in anger. B falls on a stone, suffers a fatal head injury. Sudden fight Lack of intention Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Important Note: Culpable Homicide vs. Murder

This is the most critical distinction in Indian criminal law:

• All Murders are Culpable Homicide, but not all Culpable Homicide is Murder.
• Culpable Homicide is the genus (the general class), and Murder is the species (the specific, aggravated form).

If the act of Culpable Homicide meets a higher degree of probability or certainty of causing death (as defined in IPC Section 300 or 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

• The court noted that the blows were not severe, and there was no weapon used.
• There was no premeditation, and the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel.
• The accused could not have known that his act would cause death.
• The mental element (mens rea) did not reach the level of murder.

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

• The Supreme Court observed that there was a time gap between the provocation (wife’s confession) and the killing.
• This gap gave Nanavati time to regain self-control, so it was not sudden provocation.
• The story of accidental firing was found to be false.
• Nanavati had carried a loaded gun and confronted the deceased—showing intention or knowledge.

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:

• The spear blow was intentional.
• It was on a vital organ.
• The injury was certainly sufficient to cause death.

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.