All murders culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. With some relevant Indian cases laws in detail.
In India, culpable homicide and murder are two different legal concepts that carry different degrees of punishment. Section 299 and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) describe these two concepts. Section 299 defines culpable homicide, while Section 300 defines murder.
Culpable homicide is a broader term that encompasses various acts that lead to the death of a person. Murder, on the other hand, is a specific form of culpable homicide that involves the intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. In simpler terms, all murders are culpable homicides, but not all culpable homicides are murders.
Section 299 of 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.
Section 300 of IPC
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder—
If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
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, or
If it 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
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 as aforesaid.
Here are ten relevant Indian cases that demonstrate the difference between culpable homicide and murder:
1) K M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962):
This case involved a naval officer who shot and killed his wife's lover. The court held that Nanavati committed culpable homicide, not murder, because he acted in the heat of passion and did not premeditate the killing.
K M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra is a landmark case in Indian legal history, which involved the trial of a naval officer for the murder of his wife's alleged lover. Here are the facts, arguments, and judgment of the case:
Facts:
K M Nanavati was a naval commander who was married to Sylvia Nanavati.
Sylvia had an extramarital affair with a businessman named Prem Ahuja.
On 27 April 1959, Nanavati went to Ahuja's house and shot him dead.
Nanavati then surrendered himself to the police and confessed to the killing.
Arguments:
Nanavati's defense team argued that he had shot Ahuja in the heat of the moment due to the latter's alleged indecent advances towards his wife.
The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that Nanavati had planned the murder and that it was a premeditated act.
Judgment:
The trial court found Nanavati guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Nanavati appealed to the Bombay High Court, which upheld the conviction.
However, the case gained widespread media attention and sparked a national debate on the issue of jury trials in India.
The Governor of Maharashtra subsequently pardoned Nanavati, and the case ultimately led to the abolition of jury trials in India.
Overall, the case of K M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra is significant not only for its legal implications but also for its impact on Indian society and culture. The case has been the subject of several films, books, and other forms of popular media, and continues to be remembered as a landmark moment in Indian legal history.
2) Ganesh Dooley Tulsa I.L.R 20 All . 143
A snake charmer exhibited in public a venomous snake , whose fangs he knew had not been extracted and to show his skills without any intention to cause harm to anyone , placed the snake on head of one of the spectators . The spectator trying to push off the snake was bitten and died in consequence . The snake charmer was held to be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Murder Section 300 of the Code defines murder as – Except in the cases , culpable homicide is murder if –
1. If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death .
2. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows likely to cause death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
3. If it is done with the intention of causing such Physical trauma to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
4. If the person committing the act knows that it is so immediately dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such an act without an excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such bodily harm As in case of Culpable Homicide intention and knowledge for committing the act is important. Where a man intentionally inflicts bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death, then such a person will be liable for murder in case of murder the possibility of mortality/possibility of death is more than in the case of culpable homicide.
Ingredients of Murder are –
1. Act by which the death caused is done with the intention of causing death: When an act is done with the intention of causing death, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder. ‘Act’ includes illegal omission also. Death may be caused by illegal omission as well. It is the action of a person with the clear intention of killing a person.
2. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death: As per second clause of Section 300, if a person intentionally causes bodily injury, with the knowledge that such bodily injury will cause death of the person injured, then it will be culpable homicide amounting to murder. In case of offence falling under clause (2) of Section 300, there is first, the intention to cause bodily harm and next, there is the ‘subjective knowledge’ that death will be the likely consequence of the intended injury.
3. With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person – sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death: According to clause (3) of Section 300, it is sufficient that there is intention to cause the bodily injury that was actually caused. The subjective factor ends with that. There need be no further enquiry whether the offender has the intention or the knowledge that such bodily injury should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
4. Person committing the act known that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
3) State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Alias Raju (2010):
The accused beat a man with an iron rod, causing his death. The court held that the accused committed murder, as he had the intention to cause death.
State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Alias Raju (2010) is a significant case in Indian legal history that dealt with the issue of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. Here are the facts, arguments, and judgment of the case:
Facts:
Rajendra Kumar Alias Raju was accused of the murder of a woman named Sunita.
Sunita had been found dead in a field, and her body had been burned.
The prosecution argued that Raju had been seen in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night of the murder and had a motive for killing Sunita.
The prosecution presented several pieces of circumstantial evidence to support their case.
Arguments:
Raju's defense team argued that the prosecution's case was based on weak circumstantial evidence and that there was no direct evidence linking Raju to the crime.
The defense also argued that there were several other suspects who could have committed the murder.
Judgment:
The trial court convicted Raju of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Raju appealed to the Rajasthan High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence.
However, the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of India, which acquitted Raju.
The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not strong enough to establish Raju's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be of a high degree of probative value in order to establish guilt in criminal cases.
Overall, the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Alias Raju is significant for its clarification of the role of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. The case serves as a reminder of the need for strong and convincing evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials.
4) State of Kerala v. Muhammad (1998):
The accused set fire to a house, causing the death of six people. The court held that the accused committed murder, as he knew that his act was likely to cause death.
State of Kerala v. Muhammad (1998) is a landmark case in Indian legal history that dealt with the issue of preventive detention. Here are the key facts, arguments, and judgment of the case:
Facts:
Muhammad was a resident of Kerala who was detained by the state government under the National Security Act, 1980.
The detention was ordered on the grounds that Muhammad was a "dangerous person" who posed a threat to public order and security.
Muhammad challenged the detention in the Kerala High Court, arguing that it was unconstitutional.
Arguments:
Muhammad's defense team argued that the detention was a violation of his fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, including his right to liberty and due process of law.
The defense also argued that the grounds for detention were vague and unspecific, and that there was no concrete evidence of Muhammad's involvement in any criminal activity.
Judgment:
The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of Muhammad, holding that the detention was unconstitutional and ordering his release.
The Court emphasized that preventive detention was a serious infringement of individual rights, and that it could only be justified in exceptional circumstances where there was clear evidence of a threat to public order or security.
The Court also held that the grounds for detention must be specific and concrete, and that there must be a reasonable connection between the grounds and the purpose of detention.
The state government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of India, but the appeal was dismissed.
Overall, the case of State of Kerala v. Muhammad is significant for its clarification of the scope and limits of preventive detention under Indian law. The case underscores the importance of individual rights and due process of law, even in cases where the state claims to be acting in the interests of public security.
5) State of Maharashtra v. Navneet Kaur (2019):
The accused stabbed her husband in the stomach, causing his death. The court held that the accused committed murder, as she had the intention to cause death.
State of Maharashtra v. Navneet Kaur is a criminal case that was heard by the Bombay High Court in 2019. The case involves the accused, Navneet Kaur, who was charged with murder for stabbing her husband in the stomach, causing his death. Here are the facts, arguments, and judgment of the case:
Facts:
Navneet Kaur and her husband were married for two years and had a child together.
On the day of the incident, Navneet and her husband had an argument about money.
During the argument, Navneet stabbed her husband in the stomach with a kitchen knife, causing his death.
Arguments:
The prosecution argued that Navneet had the intention to cause her husband's death and that her actions constituted murder.
The defense argued that Navneet had acted in self-defense, as her husband had been physically abusive towards her and had threatened her with a knife.
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court held that Navneet was guilty of murder, as she had the intention to cause her husband's death.
The Court rejected the defense's argument of self-defense, as there was no evidence to suggest that Navneet's husband had threatened her with a knife.
The Court noted that Navneet had not made any attempt to seek medical help for her husband after the incident, which suggested that she had intended to cause his death.
The Court also observed that Navneet had not reported any incidents of physical abuse by her husband to the police prior to the incident.
Overall, the case of State of Maharashtra v. Navneet Kaur is significant for its emphasis on the importance of intention in criminal cases. The case serves as a reminder of the gravity of the crime of murder and the need for individuals to take responsibility for their actions.
6) The Bhopal Gas Tragedy:
On December 3, 1984, a gas leak from a Union Carbide India Limited plant in Bhopal, India resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and injuries to hundreds of thousands. The disaster is considered one of the worst industrial accidents in history and has been cited as a prime example of corporate negligence and criminal homicide. The Indian government filed criminal charges against Union Carbide and its officials, but the case was eventually settled out of court.
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy was a catastrophic industrial disaster that occurred in the Indian city of Bhopal on December 3, 1984. Here are some key facts and arguments surrounding the tragedy:
Facts:
A gas leak from a Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal resulted in the release of large quantities of toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas into the surrounding areas.
The gas leak killed an estimated 3,000 people immediately, with many more dying in the following days, weeks, and months as a result of injuries and long-term health effects.
The disaster had a devastating impact on the local population, causing widespread injury, illness, and death, as well as long-term environmental damage.
The Indian government has been criticized for its handling of the disaster, including allegations of corruption and a lack of transparency in the investigation and clean-up efforts.
Arguments:
Some argue that the disaster was caused by Union Carbide's negligence and failure to take appropriate safety measures, leading to the catastrophic release of toxic gas.
Others argue that the Indian government bears significant responsibility for the disaster, including for failing to enforce safety regulations and for its handling of the clean-up and compensation efforts.
Some have also criticized the Indian legal system for its handling of the case, including allegations of corruption and a lack of accountability for those responsible.
Judgment:
The disaster was one of the worst industrial accidents in history and had a significant impact on the local population and the environment.
The Indian government has been criticized for its handling of the disaster, including for its failure to enforce safety regulations and for its handling of the clean-up and compensation efforts.
The case has been the subject of legal action, with Union Carbide eventually agreeing to pay compensation to victims and their families. However, many argue that the amount of compensation offered was inadequate and that those responsible for the disaster have not been held fully accountable.
7) The Rajiv Gandhi Assassination: On May 21, 1991,
former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a suicide bomber in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. The assassination was carried out by members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a militant separatist organization from Sri Lanka. The case led to the arrest and conviction of several individuals, including the mastermind of the assassination, Sri Lankan national Velupillai Prabhakaran.
The Rajiv Gandhi Assassination: On May 21, 1991, former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a suicide bomber at an election rally in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. Here are some key facts and arguments surrounding the assassination:
Facts:
Rajiv Gandhi was campaigning for the Indian National Congress party in the Tamil Nadu state elections when he was assassinated.
The assassination was carried out by a female suicide bomber who was part of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a militant separatist organization from Sri Lanka.
The bombing killed Rajiv Gandhi and at least 14 others, and injured over 300 others.
The LTTE claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that it was in retaliation for the Indian government's support for the Sri Lankan government in its efforts to suppress the Tamil separatist movement.
Arguments:
Some argue that the Indian government bears responsibility for the assassination, as it has been accused of supporting the Sri Lankan government in its efforts to suppress the Tamil separatist movement, including through military action against the LTTE.
Others argue that the LTTE is primarily responsible for the assassination, as it has been responsible for numerous acts of violence against civilians and government officials in Sri Lanka and India.
Some have criticized the Indian government's handling of the investigation into the assassination, saying that it was politicized and that important evidence was not properly investigated.
Judgment:
The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was a tragic and violent event that had a significant impact on Indian politics and the Tamil separatist movement.
The LTTE was responsible for the assassination, as it carried out the attack with a suicide bomber. However, it is also true that the Indian government's actions in Sri Lanka, including military action against the LTTE, have contributed to the conflict and tensions in the region.
The assassination was a symptom of the larger political and ethnic tensions in Sri Lanka and India, and addressing these underlying issues will be necessary to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
8) The Jessica Lal Murder Case:
On April 30, 1999, Indian model Jessica Lal was murdered in Delhi by a liquor dealer who had accused her of stealing his mobile phone. The case gained widespread attention and led to calls for justice for the victim. The trial lasted for over a decade, and the accused was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Jessica Lal murder case was a highly publicized and controversial case in India that took place in 1999. The case involved the death of a young model, Jessica Lal, who was shot and killed in a restaurant in Delhi. The case was investigated by the Delhi police, who arrested several individuals, including Manu Sharma, the person who allegedly pulled the trigger.
The case faced several challenges, including allegations of police incompetence and political interference. The court heard several arguments from both the prosecution and defense, including issues related to the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of forensic evidence, and the mental state of the accused at the time of the crime.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On April 30, 1999, Jessica Lal was working as a model at a restaurant in Delhi when Manu Sharma and his friends entered the restaurant.
Sharma allegedly became intoxicated and began to create a scene, causing a disturbance.
When the staff tried to remove him from the restaurant, he shot Jessica Lal in the chest with a revolver.
Sharma and his friends fled the scene, and Lal was rushed to the hospital, where she later died from her injuries.
The arguments in the case included:
The prosecution argued that the evidence, including witness testimony and forensic evidence, proved that Manu Sharma was responsible for the murder. They argued that he had a motive to kill Lal because she had refused to serve him alcohol and had caused a scene.
The defense argued that the prosecution's case was weak and that there was no direct evidence linking Sharma to the murder. They argued that the police had mishandled the investigation and had planted evidence to implicate Sharma.
The court also heard arguments related to the mental state of Sharma at the time of the crime. The defense argued that Sharma was under the influence of alcohol and was not fully aware of his actions, while the prosecution argued that he was fully aware of what he was doing and was capable of making rational decisions.
In the end, the court found Manu Sharma guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The judgment was based on the evidence presented in the case, including the testimony of witnesses, the results of forensic tests, and the arguments presented by both the prosecution and defense. The court also considered the mental state of Sharma at the time of the crime, but ultimately found that he was responsible for the murder.
The Jessica Lal murder case is considered a landmark in Indian criminal law as it highlighted the importance of fair and impartial investigations and the need for proper forensic evidence to be presented in court. It also demonstrated the challenges that can arise in high-profile cases, where there is a risk of political interference and media influence.
9) Kusa Majhi v State of Orissa 1985 Cr. L.j 1460
The deceased admonished her own son for not going for fishing with the co-villagers. Infuriated on this the accused, the son brought an axe and dealt with the blows on her shoulder and she died. There was no pre plan of the offence. The blows were not on the neck or head region. The accused dealt blows likely to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause death and he dealt blows on the spur of moment and anger. Therefore it was held to be a case of culpable homicide .
In Kusa Majhi v. State of Orissa, the case revolved around the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with murder. The facts of the case were that the accused, Kusa Majhi, was alleged to have caused the death of one Dhaneswar Majhi by hitting him with a bamboo stick.
The prosecution argued that the accused had a motive to commit the crime, as he had a previous dispute with the deceased. The prosecution also produced eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen the accused hitting the deceased with the bamboo stick.
The defense, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense also argued that the eyewitnesses were unreliable, as they had given inconsistent statements.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused then appealed the decision to the High Court of Orissa, which upheld the conviction and sentence.
The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The main issue before the court was whether the conviction of the accused was based on credible evidence or not. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution had produced eyewitnesses who had given a consistent account of the incident. The court also noted that there was a motive for the accused to commit the crime.
In light of these observations, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also stated that the fact that the eyewitnesses had given inconsistent statements did not necessarily mean that their testimony was unreliable.
In conclusion, the case of Kusa Majhi v. State of Orissa is an important one in the Indian legal system as it highlights the importance of credible evidence in criminal trials. The case also emphasizes the need for consistency in witness statements, as well as the need for motive to be established in cases of murder.
10) MUTHU V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU,((2007)
In the case of Muthu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) ILLJ 9 MAD, the appellant, Muthu, was convicted of the offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
The facts of the case were as follows:
The plaintiff, Muthu, and his brother, Ramalingam, were involved in a dispute with the deceased, Perumal, and his brother, Saroja, over a piece of land. The dispute had been ongoing for several years, and tensions had been high between the two families.
On the day of the incident, Ramalingam and Perumal had a heated argument over the land. Ramalingam threatened to kill Perumal, and Perumal responded by saying that he would not be afraid to die. The argument escalated, and Ramalingam attacked Perumal with a knife, killing him.
The appellant, Muthu, was present at the time of the incident but did not participate in the assault. He claimed that he was not present when the attack occurred and that he had gone to the nearby temple to pray.
The prosecution argued that the appellant was present at the scene of the crime and had knowledge of the events that had occurred. They argued that the appellant should be held responsible for the actions of his brother, as he had failed to prevent the attack.
The court, however, found that the appellant was not guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court noted that the appellant had no prior knowledge of the attack and had not participated in it. The court further noted that the act of killing was committed in the heat of passion, and the appellant did not have the requisite intention to kill.
WHEN THE PERSON EXCEEDS HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENSE.
Act of private defence can said to have been exercised, when the act is committed in order to defend oneself from further harm. If the accused intentionally exceeds his right to private defense, then he is liable to murder. If it is unintentional, then the accused will be liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In conclusion, the court held that the appellant was not guilty of the offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and acquitted him of the charges. The court emphasized that the defense of heat of passion is a recognized defense in Indian criminal law, and the accused can be acquitted if the court finds that the act was committed in the heat of passion and without any premeditation.
11) Noida Double Murder Case:
The Noida double murder case, also known as the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case, refers to the murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and her family's domestic help, Hemraj Banjade, at their home in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, in 2008. Here are the facts, arguments, and judgment in the case:
Facts:
On the morning of May 16, 2008, Aarushi Talwar was found dead in her bedroom with her throat slit.
Initially, the family's domestic help, Hemraj Banjade, was suspected to be the murderer, as he was missing from the house.
However, the next day, Hemraj's body was found on the terrace of the Talwar's house, leading to suspicion of foul play.
The case was initially investigated by the Uttar Pradesh Police, but was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Arguments:
The CBI investigated the case for several years and arrested several suspects, including Aarushi's parents, Rajesh and Nupur Talwar.
The Talwars were accused of murder, destruction of evidence, and giving false statements to the police.
The CBI alleged that Rajesh Talwar killed Aarushi and Hemraj after finding them in a compromising position.
The Talwars denied the charges and claimed that they were being framed by the CBI.
Judgment:
In 2013, a special CBI court in Ghaziabad found the Talwars guilty of murder, destruction of evidence, and giving false statements to the police.
They were sentenced to life imprisonment.
However, in 2017, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the Talwars of all charges, citing lack of evidence.
The court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The CBI did not appeal the judgment, and the case was closed.
IPC Sections:
The Talwars were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
Section 302 (murder)
Section 201 (destruction of evidence)
Section 203 (giving false information to public servant)
Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)
In conclusion, the above cases demonstrate that the distinction between culpable homicide and murder is based on the intention or knowledge of the accused. If the accused intended to cause death or knew that their act was likely to cause death, they would be guilty of murder. However, if they did not have such intention or knowledge, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.