Culpable Homicide and Murder Under BNS 2023 in detail
Chapter VI of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) comprising Sections 100-146 deals with the offences affecting the human body. Sections 100-112 of the BNS deal with offences affecting human life; these offences are as under:
Culpable homicide simpliciter (As provided under Section 100 and punishable under Section 105)
Murder (As provided under Section 101 and punishable under Section 103)
Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder (As Covered by Exceptions I- V of Section 101 and punishable under Section 105)
Culpable homicide by causing death of a person other than the person whose death was intended (As provided under Section 102).
Murder by Life Convict (As provided under Section 104).
Causing death by negligence (As provided under Section 106)
Abetment of suicide of child or person of unsound mind (As provided under Section 107)
Abetment of suicide (As provided under Section 108)
Attempt to murder (As provided under Section 109)
Attempt to commit culpable homicide (As provided under Section 110)
Organised Crime (As provided and punishable under Section 111)
Petty Organised Crime (As provided and punishable under Section 112)
Terrorist Act (As provided and punishable under Section 113)
The earlier Penal Code i.e., the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with the offences affecting life under Chapter XVI from Sections 299-311.
Culpable Homicide
Culpable denotes such killing which is made punishable by law. Homicide literally means killing of a human being by another human being. It may be either lawful or unlawful.
Section 100 of BNS defines the offence of Culpable Homicide.
As per Section 100, a person is guilty of the offence of Culpable Homicide
when he causes death of a human being 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.
Example:- 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.
Example:- A lays 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.
Example;- 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.
Explanation 1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Example:- A person is seriously ill and doctors say he may live for a few more weeks. Another person attacks him and causes injuries. Because of those injuries, the sick person dies earlier than expected. Even though the victim was already ill, the attacker is considered to have caused the death.
Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Example:- A attacks B and causes serious injuries. B dies later. It is proved that with timely and expert medical treatment, B might have survived. Still, A will be treated as having caused B’s death.
Explanation 3.—The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may 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.
Example 1 (Not homicide): A child is still completely inside the womb. Someone causes the death of the fetus. This is not homicide (though other offences may apply).
Example 2 (Culpable homicide): The child’s head or hand has come out during delivery. The child is alive at that moment. Someone causes the child’s death. This can amount to culpable homicide, even if the child never took a breath.
In Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P.,
The accused and the deceased were neighbours and an altercation took place between the accused and the family members of the victim. After the quarrel, the accused went back to his house in an angry state and took his father’s revolver. He then fired indiscriminately towards the house of the victim. At that time, the victim was trying to close the door of his house and was struck by a bullet, which caused his death. The court held that the accused did not have a clear intention to kill the victim, as the firing was not aimed at any particular person but was done recklessly in anger. The accused was held liable for culpable homicide.
In Luxman Kalu Case
A had gone to his father-in-laws house to fetch his wife. There was some quarrel between A and his brother-in-law B on the question whether his wife should accompany him by the night train the same the quarrel A lost his temper and gave one blow with a knife on the chest day or by the morning train the next day as desired by their in-laws. During the which resulted in his death. It was held that A was guilty under the second part of section 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder Because death was caused by doing an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
In Ganesh Dooley Case
A snake charmer exhibited in public a venomous snake, whose fangs he knew had not been extracted, and to show his own skill, but without any intention to cause harm to anyone, placed the snake on the head of one of the spectators. The spectator in trying to push off the snake, was bitten, and died in consequence. The snake charmer was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In another case Mst. Tulsa,
A young widow of twenty, wishing to elope with her lover at night, wanted to elude the vigilance of her parents, who were naturally opposed to her elopement. With a view to intoxicate them she mixed dhatura seeds in their food. The parents were seized with illness because of the effects of dhatura and were removed to the hospital where they ultimately recovered. She was convicted under section 307 and the court held, “we must presume that people of her age have the ordinary knowledge of what the results may be of administering dhatura.”
Punishment for Culpable homicide
Section 105:- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
Imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
With imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Murder
Section 101:- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,––
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or
(b) if the act by which the death is caused 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; or
(c) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the 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
(d) if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, 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 as aforesaid.
Example:- A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
Example:- 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.
Example:- 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.
Example:- 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.
Exceptions Of Murder
Exception 1.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-controlby grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident:
Provided that the provocation is not,––
(a) sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person;
(b) given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant;
(c) given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations.
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z’s child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that he does not believe a word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z’s nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was giving by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.
Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Example:- Z tries to whip A with a horsewhip. Although the attack is not likely to cause serious injury, Z does not stop. A pulls out a pistol and, in good faith believing that this is the only way to stop the assault, shoots Z, causing his death. Since A was acting in self-defence but used more force than necessary, the act amounts to culpable homicide, not murder.
Exception 3.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.—Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Example:- A and B are adults above 18 years. B is suffering from an incurable and extremely painful disease. Fully conscious and of sound mind, B repeatedly requests A to give him a lethal injection to end his suffering. Acting on B’s clear and voluntary consent, A administers the injection, resulting in B’s death. Here, A commits culpable homicide, but it is not murder because B knowingly took the risk of death with his own consent.
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
Virsa Singh stabbed the deceased once with a spear on the abdomen. The injury pierced vital organs and caused death. The defence argued that there was no intention to kill, so it should not be murder. Legal Issue When does a bodily injury amount to murder
Supreme Court’s Rule (The Famous 4-Step Test) Justice Vivian Bose laid down a clear test. For murder the prosecution must prove:
A bodily injury is present
The injury was intentionally inflicted (not accidental)
The injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
Death resulted from that injury
Court’s Decision The accused intentionally caused the injury, and that injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, the offence was held to be MURDER.
In Karu Marik v. State of Bihar
The accused gave a blow with churra ( sharp cutting weapon) on chest of deceased. On deceased trying to run, accused caught hold of deceased’s hair and threw her on ground and inflicted two more blows on abdomen and back. Injuries inflicted were grievous in nature and dangerous to life which resulted in causing death of deceased. It was held that from injuries caused it is clear that intention of accused was at least to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Therefore conviction of accused for murder was proper.
In Bavisetti Kameshwara Rao v. State of A.P.
Accused was a motor mechanic. Some verbal altercation took place between accused and deceased. Thereupon accused inflicted injury on abdomen of deceased with screw driver. Injury was 12 cms. deep damaging liver and spleen. Death was caused almost instantaneously. It was held that accused could be said to have intended to cause injury sufficient to cause death. Use of screw driver a common tool of mechanic cannot be said to be innocuous. The plea of accused that incident was sudden and without premeditation is not tenable and accused was held liable to be convicted for murder. It was also pointed out that solitary injury by itself was not sufficient to decide the nature of offence but it would depend on other attendant circumstances.
In Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar
The accused intentionally pierced spear in the chest of the deceased which ruptured the blood vessels cutting the norta and artery. The Supreme Court held that since the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, the conviction of the accused under Section 300(3), IPC was proper and needed no interference.
In Garasia Rajendrasinh Jethubhai v. State of Gujarat
D, the deceased in the presence of his father F and brother B scolded the accused for easing near his place. A, left the place with a threat that he would see him when they would meet alone. A week later A attacked D with a knife and dealt three blows on vital parts like neck. Two of the blows were given after D fell down after the first blow. According to the medical evidence the first injury had cut internal carotid artery and tributaries of internal jugular vein and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was held liable for murder.
B and C met each other in a drunken state and started to quarrel, during which they abused each other. All this lasted for about half an hour when B ran to his own house, and came back with a heavy pestle, with which he struck C a violent blow on the left temple causing instant death.
Punishment For Murder
Section 103. (1) Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) When a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty and introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
The Court explained when a murder falls within the “rarest of rare” category deserving the death penalty.
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
The Court clarified the ingredients required to establish murder, particularly under the clause relating to intentional bodily injury sufficient to cause death.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976
The Supreme Court clearly distinguished culpable homicide from murder, making it one of the most cited judgments in homicide cases.
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
The Court discussed the scope of the grave and sudden provocation exception to murder, making it one of India’s most famous murder cases.
Section 104.Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life
Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
This landmark judgment struck down Section 303 IPC, which made the death penalty mandatory for life convicts committing murder. The Court held that mandatory death penalty violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Section 104 BNS addresses this by giving courts discretion.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
The Court emphasized that even in serious murder cases, sentencing must be individualized and the death penalty reserved for the rarest of rare cases.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
The Court laid down principles for imposing the death penalty, which remain relevant under Section 104.
Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
The Supreme Court stressed that courts must carefully balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances before awarding the death sentence.
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013)
The Court further refined the application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine and emphasized consistency in capital sentencing.