Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Section 304 of IPC, 1860

The author Mayank Raj Pranav is a 2nd Year student pursuing BBA.LLB from Gujarat National Law University. His areas of interest include criminal law, constitutional law, the law of contracts, and the law of torts.

INTRODUCTION

All murders are culpable homicide but not vice versa. Very often we come across this phrase but have we ever witnessed the difference between the two terms present over here, i.e., 'murder' and 'culpable homicide'. When it comes to culpable homicide, it has a much wider ambit in comparison to the latter and it includes murder but not vice versa. Now, culpable homicide is further divided into two categories, namely, culpable homicide amounting to murder, i.e., the murder itself, and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In this article, the punishment granted for the offense of culpable homicide does not amount to murder and its different aspects have been briefly discussed.

Definition

Section 299 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines culpable homicide as “whoever causes death by doing an act to cause death, or intending to cause 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 offense of culpable homicide.” And subsequently, the punishment for committing this crime has been defined under section 304 of IPC which provides for two kinds of punishment granted under two different circumstances:

(1) If the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment provided is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years and fine.

(2) If the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment granted is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.[1]

In the case of Jgriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh[2], it was held that intention and knowledge postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude. It was further held that when and if there are intent and knowledge, then the same would be a case under the first part of section 304 of IPC, and if it is only the case of knowledge and no intention to cause death by bodily injury, then the same would be a case of the second part of section 304 of IPC.

Cases and circumstances

Part 1 of section 304 of IPC

For a case to fall under the initial segment of section 304 of IPC, the component of intention is obligatory. This implies that the assumption for the results being referred to and intention doesn't along these lines essentially include deliberation or thoroughly considering the killing beforehand. On the off chance that an individual playing out some demonstration either (1) anticipates that passing should be ramifications thereof; or (2) expects a perilous physical issue liable to cause demise; or (3) realizes that demise is likely outcome thereof, and for each situation passing results, his intention in the initial two cases and knowledge in the third referenced condition.

In the case of Purna Padhi v. State of Orissa[3], the deceased by the two charged individuals supported numerous wounds by sharp-cutting weapons. The injury on the correct foot of the casualty prompted the removal of the correct foot from the degree of the ankle. The casualty was moved to the clinic where 18 days after the event of the expired passed on because of Uremia. Concerning the injury on the foot, the High Court held that the offense submitted couldn't be supposed to be murder. But no uncertainty by causing the foot injury alongside others with sharp weapons, the denounced probably proposed to make such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and the offense in this manner draws in the underhandedness of Part 1 of Section 304 of IPC and the blamed was indicted under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC.

On account of Sompal Singh v. State of UP[4], the wounds were adequately adequate to imperil human existence. The injury was falling under the class of wounds that areas prone to cause demise even though every injury may not be adequate to cause passing. In such a circumstance, the conviction of the litigant as recorded by the High Court under area 304 Part 1 was maintained.

PART 2 OF SECTION 304 OF IPC

If the knowledge is finished with information that it is probably going to cause death however without any intention to cause passing or such real injury as is probably going to cause demise, the punishment is the detainment of one or the other depiction for a term which may reach out to 10 years, or with fine, or with both under the second part of section 304. Knowledge is a solid word and imports an assurance and not simply a probability. The component of knowledge is compulsory for the situation for appropriateness of the second part of section 304 of IPC.

In the case of Narayan v. State of MP [5], there was a fight between the accused and the deceased. Out of nowhere, the accused heaved a blade injury on the chest of the denounced when they were hooking each other. The chest injury was adequate in the standard course of nature to cause demise. It couldn't be said that the denounced delivered the injury planning to cause death. He could securely be credited with information that the blow perpetrated was probably going to cause passing. The accused was indicted under Part 2 of section 304 of IPC.

In the case of Madhusudan Satpathy v. State of Orissa [6], the accused attacked and caused the death of the deceased with bhala (spear), and depending on the arraignment witness the High Court indicted him under area 304 Part 1. On appeal, Supreme Court found that there was just a single injury on the head that end up being lethal and weapons utilized were not dangerous but rather the accused had knowledge that wounds brought about by them were probably going to cause death. It was held that the accused was liable for at-fault crime and his conviction was changed to Part 2 of section 304 of IPC.

CONCLUSION

It can be contended that the component of intention and knowledge plays a vital role in deciding whether a case would fall under part 1 or part 2 of section 304 of IPC to determine the punishment to be granted for the offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When there is a case that includes pure intention to cause demise with the knowledge that the performed act is probably going to cause death, at that point the accused would be sentenced under the initial part of section 304 of IPC. But, if the component of intention for causing demise is missing and the act is committed with the knowledge that it is probably going to cause the death of the individual, at that point in such a case, the accused would be rebuffed under Part 2 of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

References:

1. Section 304 (Indian Penal Code, 1860).
2. AIR 2009 SC 2869.
3. 1992 CrLJ 687.
4. (2014) 7 SCC 316.
5. (1992) 2 Crimes 611 (MP).
6. AIR 1944 SC 474.