Culpable Homicide and

Murder

By: Hifajatali Sayyed

 Introduction
• The word ‘Homicide’ is derived from latin word ‘Homa’ which means
human beings and ‘Cide’ which means killing.
• So Homicide means killing of a human being by a human being.
• The law of Homicide, i.e. killing of a human being by a human being
punishes the accused person but it is exempted under certain
circumstances. Therefore, homicide can be divided into 2 parts.
I. Lawful Homicides: Acts which are covered under the chapter of
General Exceptions of IPC.

II. Unlawful Homicides: Acts wherein a human being intentionally

causes death of another human being and there is no justification for
his act.
 Introduction
Homicide

Lawful Unlawful
Homicide Homicide

Causing
Excusable Justifiable Culpable
death by
Homicide Homicide Homicide Negligence

Murder
 Culpable Homicide
 Sec 299 of IPC states that

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.
• Eg: 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.
 Culpable Homicide
 Sec 299 of IPC defines the offence of culpable homicide.
 Ingredients of sec 299 are:

1. A person causes death.

2. By doing an act.
3. With the intention of causing death, or
4. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or
5. With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
death.
 Culpable Homicide
1. A person causes death:
• In order to prove the offence of culpable homicide, it must be
shown that death of the human being has been caused by the
act of the accused.
• ‘Death’ has been defined under section 46 of the Code as
denoting the death of a human being, unless the contrary
appears from the context.
• The relevant consideration for offence of culpable homicide is
that the death is caused as a direct result of the act
committed by the accused.
 Culpable Homicide
 Joginder Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 1979 SC 1876)

• In this case, the deceased had teased the sister of the accused.
• In retaliation, the two accused went to the house of the
deceased.
• On seeing the accused person, the deceased started running
towards the field.
• Here the accused started chasing him and were at the distance
of 15-20 feet meanwhile the deceased jumped into the well.
• As a result of this, the deceased sustained head injuries, which
made him loose consciousness and thereafter he died due to
drowning.
 Culpable Homicide
 Joginder Singh vs State of Punjab Cont…..
• The Supreme Court held that the accused were about 15 to 20
feet away from the deceased, when he jumped into the
well.
• There was no evidence to show that the accused drove
the deceased into the well or they had left no option
but to jump into the well.
• Therefore, the Court acquitted the accused of the charge of
murder.
 Culpable Homicide

 Moti Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC

900)
• In this case the accused had shot the deceased in the abdomen.
The injury was received on 9th February, 1960.
• Subsequently, he was discharged from the hospital.

• There was no evidence as to whether he had fully recovered or not

when he was discharged from the hospital.
• He however died on 1st of March, 1960.

• His body was cremated without any postmortem being done.

 Culpable Homicide

 Moti Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh Cont…

• Here the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the gunshot
injuries were dangerous to life were not sufficient for holding
the accused liable for the death of the deceased.
• Since there was no evidence to establish the cause of death, the
accused could not be said to have caused the death.
 Culpable Homicide
2. By doing an act:
• An ‘act’ according to section 33 of the Code denotes as
well as a series of acts as a single act and the word
‘omission’ denotes as well a series of omissions as a single
omission.
• Section 32 of the Code makes it specific that in every part of
this Code, except where a contrary intention appears from the
context, words which refer to acts done extend also to
illegal omissions.
 Culpable Homicide
3. With the intention of causing death:
• For the offence of culpable homicide, it must be proved that
there was an intention of the accused of causing death.
Generally the intention of the accused is to be determined
from the act of the accused.
• Intention with reference to culpable homicide, not necessarily
means pre-meditation or preplanning. The expectation
that the act of a person is likely to result in death is
sufficient to constitute intention.
 Culpable Homicide
4. With the intention of causing such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death:
• If the intention of the accused is to cause a particular injury,
which is likely to cause death then it amounts to the offence
of culpable homicide.
• The court should determine whether a bodily injury is likely to
cause death by three things;
a. The body part where the injury has been caused.

b. The nature of injury.

c. The nature of the weapon used.

 Culpable Homicide
 Difference between ‘intention to cause death’ and ‘intention
to cause such bodily injury as likely to cause death’:
• The main difference between these two expressions is that of degree
of criminality. The latter is a degree lower in scale of criminality
than the former. But in both the cases, the intention is present and so
the law does not make any distinction in punishment u/s 304 Part-I.
• Secondly, in the former the accused has the intention to cause death
whereas in the latter he has no intention to cause death but only to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
 Culpable Homicide
5. With the knowledge that he is likely by such act
to cause death:
• For the offence of culpable homicide it is to be shown that
the accused was having knowledge that his act can cause
death.
• Knowledge means consciousness. It is awareness of the
consequences of the act. The offender should reasonably
expect that the consequence of his act would
probably result in the death of a person.
 Culpable Homicide
 Ramesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (AIR 1993 SC 2317)
• In this case, the accused persons who were four in number
were armed with pistol, lathi and knife at the time of
incident. They attacked the deceased with kicks and fist
blows. The victim died because of shock and haemorrhage.
Here the accused did not use pistol, lathi or knife to
attack the deceased.
 Culpable Homicide
 Ramesh Kumar vs State of Bihar Cont…..
• Here the Court held that the accused had knowledge that
by their acts they were likely to cause the death of the
deceased though without any intention to cause death.
 Culpable Homicide
 Sec 299 of IPC is appended with three explanations.
 Explanation 1:
• Causing bodily injury to a person labouring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity and thereby accelerating his death has
been deemed to be causing his death under the first explanation. It
is futile for the offender to contend that had the deceased not been
labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity he would not
have died.
• This explanation pre-supposes that the act on the part of the accused
falls under at least one of the ingredients of section 299. If such is
not the case and the prosecution fails to establish on the part of the
accused either intention to cause death, or intention to cause such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or knowledge that the bodily
injury is such as is likely to cause death, this explanation will not be
applicable.
 Culpable Homicide
 Explanation 2:
• It provides for a situation wherein a person who has been injured
could have recovered and escaped death, if, he had been given
prompt and proper medical treatment. In such situations too,
the fact that the injured person died because he could not avail of
good medical treatment, cannot be ground for excusing the guilt of
the person who inflicted the injury.
 Culpable Homicide

 Explanation 2:
• Sellappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2007) 15 SCC 327]

• In this case, the accused gave two blows with a stick to the
deceased on the head. Subsequently the deceased was admitted
to the hospital and after one week the deceased died because of
the injuries.
• Here the accused pleaded that with proper treatment, life of the
deceased could have been saved.
• But the Supreme Court held that the plea of the accused is not
tenable in view of explanation 2 to section 299. The accused was
convicted for culpable homicide.
 Culpable Homicide
 Explanation 3:

• It provides that if the death of the child is caused when still in

the mother’s womb, is not culpable homicide. However, if any
portion of the child, comes out of the mother’s womb,
even if it is not fully born, and if the death is caused to such a
child, then it would amount to culpable homicide if
requirements mentioned in section 299 are fulfilled.
• In other words, killing of a pregnant woman is only one
homicide and not homicides because as long as a child is in the
mother’s womb it has no independent existence of its own.
 Murder
• Sec 300 of IPC defines murder with reference to the
offence of culpable homicide defined u/s 299 of IPC.
• Only if an act falls under clauses 1-4 of sec 300, then
culpable homicide will amount to murder.
• If the act comes under the exceptions given below sec 300
than it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Murder is the aggravated form of culpable homicide.

• It can be said that all murders are culpable homicide

but all culpable homicides are not murder.
 Murder
 According to sec 300, Culpable Homicide amounts to murder in the
following cases:
1) If the act is done with the intention of causing death.
2) If the act 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.
3) If the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
4) If the act is done with the knowledge, 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 such act is committed
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or injury.
 Murder
1. If the act is done with the intention of causing death:
• Intention connotes a conscious state in which mental faculties are
roused into activity and summoned into action for the deliberate
purpose of being directed towards a particular and specified act and
which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself.
• Intention is what intention does. So, the intention of the person
can be gathered from the action of the person.
• If a person administers a deadly poison to a man, then it is very clear
that he has an intention to kill that man, because the cause and effect
of the act are very clear. It is evident that the effect of poisoning is to
cause instant death.
 Murder
 Selvaraj vs State Of Tamil Nadu (1998) 9 SCC 308

• In this case, because of some dispute the accused person

stabbed the victim on his left chest with a knife
and brought it downwards, due to which the
intestines came out of the abdomen with
bleeding.
• Here, the Supreme Court held that the intention to kill
the deceased was very clear from the act of the accused.
So the accused was convicted for the offence of murder.
 Murder
• It is important to note that the first clause of sec 300,
which is ‘act done with intention to cause death’ is
identical to the first clause of sec 299, which is also
‘doing an act with the intention of causing death.’
• So an act coming under clause (1) of sec 300 will also fall
under clause (1) of sec 299, and in both instances it will
be culpable homicide amounting to murder.
 Murder

2. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the

offender knows to be likely to cause death:

• 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.

• Here both the aspects of mens rea i.e. intention and
knowledge are present.
• 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.
 Murder
Clause (2) continues…
• It is said to be ‘subjective knowledge’, because it is the his own
personal perception of the consequence of his act. Here
‘knowledge’ on the part of the offender imports certainty and not
merely probability.
• The clause contemplates a situation, where the offender has a
certain special knowledge regarding the peculiar situation or
health condition of the particular victim that the intentional
bodily injury is likely to be fatal.
• A, knowing that Z is laboring 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
 Murder

3. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death:

For the application of clause (3) of Section 300, two things need to
be proved:
• one that the injury was intentionally inflicted and

• secondly, that the injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death of any person.
 Murder

 Dhansai Sahu vs State of Orissa (AIR 1969 Ori 105)

• In this case, the accused person assaulted an old man

of about 70 years by wooden pole. The victim died of
the consequences.
• The Orissa High Court convicted the accused for
murder and held that the injuries caused were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death.
 Murder
 Virsa Singh vs The State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465)
In this case, the accused thrust a spear into the abdomen of the
deceased. This injury caused his death. Here the Supreme
Court held that the prosecution must prove the following
before it can bring a case under third clause of sec 300 of IPC.
1) It must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is
present.
2) The nature of the injury must be proved; these are purely
objective investigations.
3) It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or
unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
4) It must be proved that the injury was sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature.
 Murder
4. With the knowledge, that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death:
Clause (4) of sec 300 contemplates generally, commission of the
acts which are so imminently dangerous that it is likely to cause
death. It contains the element of knowledge regarding the
serious consequences of the act.
Eg: 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.
 Murder
 Clause (4)… conti…
 Without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death:
• It means that the accused person has committed the act and
has no valid ground whatsoever for taking such a big risk of
causing death. If there is some valid excuse available for
incurring such a risk, obviously this clause has no application.
 Murder

 Emperor vs Dhirajia (AIR 1940 All 486)

• In this case, a young village woman, was continuously being ill-
treated by her husband. On the day of the incident they had again
quarreled and the husband had threatened that he would beat her.
The woman slipped away from home with her six month old child in
the night.

• But after having gone for some distance she heard the sound
of foot steps behind her. Turning around she saw that her
husband was following her. She got in a panic and
immediately jumped into a well along with her child. The
child died even though she was saved.
 Murder
 Emperor vs Dhirajia Cont.…
• It was held that even though she knew that her act of jumping
into the well along with her child was so imminently dangerous
that it must cause death of the child in all probability, yet she
had a valid excuse for incurring such risk as in a panic she
had to decide at the spur of the moment as to how could she get
away from her husband who was following her and she thought
that jumping into the well was the only way and she did the same.
• Consequently, clause (4) of section 300 was not attracted
and she was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder under clause (3) of section 299 of the Code.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Sec 300 provides five exceptional situations, the existence

of which will remove a case from the purview of sec 300 and it
will merely be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
 The following are the exceptions provided under sec 300:

1. Grave and sudden provocation.

2. Exceeding Right of Private Defence.

3. Public Servant exceeding his power.

4. Sudden Fight.
5. Consent.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
Exception 1 - Grave and Sudden Provocation:
Culpable homicide will not be murder, if, the offender on
account of grave and sudden provocation, is deprived of his
power of self-control and causes the death of a person.
This exception is subject to certain conditions:
a. The provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the
offender as an excuse.
b. The provocation is not 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. The provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful
exercise of the right of private defence.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
 K M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962
SC 605)

• In this case, the accused was a naval officer. One day, his wife
confessed to him that she had developed intimacy with the
deceased.
• Enraged at this, the accused went to ship, took a revolver and
six cartridges from the store of the ship, went to the flat of the
deceased, entered his bedroom and shot him dead.
• Thereafter the accused surrendered himself to the police.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
 K M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra Cont…….
• Here the Supreme Court held that the accused, after his wife confessed
about the illicit relationship, may have momentarily lost control.
• He had thereafter dropped his wife and children to a cinema, left them
there, went to his ship, took a revolver on a false pretext, loaded it with
six rounds, did some official business there, and drove his car to the
office of deceased and then to his flat, went straight to the bed-room of
deceased and shot him dead.
• There was sufficient time for him to regain self-control. So
the Court held that it is not a case under exception of sec 300 and
convicted the accused for murder.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
 K M Nanavati Cont…..
Here the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines relating
to grave and sudden provocation:

i. The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a

reasonable person belonging to the same class of society as the
accused, placed in a similar situation, would be so provoked as to
lose his self control.

ii. In India, words and gestures may, under certain circumstances

cause grave and sudden provocation so as to attract that exception.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
 K M Nanavati Cont…..
Here the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines relating
to grave and sudden provocation:

iii. The mental background created by any previous act of the

victim can also be taken into consideration in judging whether the
subsequent act could cause grave and sudden provocation.

iv. Fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of the

passion arising from that provocation and not after the
passion had cooled down by lapse of time or otherwise,
giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
 Bhura Ram vs State of Rajasthan (2003) 9 SCC 205
In this case, the accused, armed with weapon and
accompanied with others, entered into the hut of the
deceased. Apprehending danger to his life, the deceased fired
at one of the companions of the accused and thereby caused
his death. The accused then attacked the deceased with an
axe on his head and killed him. During trial he pleaded that
the death of the companion caused grave and sudden
provocation to him.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Bhura Ram vs State of Rajasthan Cont…

• Here the Supreme Court refused to accept the plea as the
accused himself was the aggressor and he solicited the
provocation.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
Exception 2 – Exceeding the Right of Private Defence:
• Under ‘General Exceptions’ a person has right of private defence
of person and property. This right under certain circumstances
even extends to causing death. This clause deals with the
situation where a person exceeds the right of private defence.
The factor of private defence reduces the gravity of offence from
murder to culpable homicide.
• Before this exception can be availed of, it has to be proved that
the accused had the right of private defence as given u/s 96-106
of IPC.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 If a person genuinely exercises his right of private defence within

the prescribed limits, then he commits no offence. However, if
the person exceeds the right of private defence and causes death
of a person than it will amount to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. The most important circumstances in
determining this factor is the intention of the offender.
 Eg: Z attempts to slap A. Here A takes out the gun and shoots Z
in private defence. Z dies in consequence. Here A has exceeded
his right of private defence and is guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Essentials:
• The accused must be exercising the right of private defence
at the time of committing the act.
• He must act in good faith.
• He should have exceed the limit without intention to cause
more harm.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
 Lachmi Koeri vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1960 Pat 62)
• In this case, an FIR was registered u/s 457 (Lurking house-trespass) and
u/s 380 (Theft) of IPC. So a police constable went to arrest the accused.
At that time there was scuffle between the accused and the police officer.
Meanwhile the accused gave several blows with knife to the police officer
who died.
• During the trial, the accused took the defence that the police officer
started beating him during the arrest and as he was not in uniform the
accused could not identify him and exercised his right of private defence.
• Also the accused wanted to free himself from his grip and so he used
knife.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Lachmi Koeri vs. State of Bihar Cont…..

• Here the court held that while initially the appellant had the
right of private defence, but it does not come under Exception
2 to Section 300 and it cannot be held that his right of private
defence extended up to the causing the death of police officer.
• That being so and also because he obviously intended to cause a
bodily injury to the police officer which was likely, in the
ordinary course of nature, to cause his death, he is guilty
u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder
 Onkarnath Singh vs State of UP (AIR 1974 SC 1550)
In this case, the deceased had initially attempted to attack the
accused. There was an incident of grappling between the parties.
When the deceased was fleeing, the accused made a murderous
assault and the victim died.
Here the Supreme Court held that the force used was out of all
proportion to the supposed danger, which no longer
existed from the deceased. So, the accused was neither entitled
to a right of private defence, nor to the benefit under exception 2 of
sec 300. Therefore, the accused was convicted for the offence of
murder.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

Exception 3 – Public Servant Exceeding his Power

The ingredients of exception 3 are:
i. The offence must be committed by a public servant or by a
person aiding the public servant.
ii. The public servant commits the act in discharge of his official
duty.
iii. He should have exceeded the powers given to him by law.
iv. The act should be done in good faith.

v. The public servant should have believed that his act was lawful
and necessary for the due discharge of his duties.

vi. He should not have any ill-will towards the person whose death
was caused.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Dakhi Singh vs State (AIR 1955 All 379)

• In this case, a thief was arrested by a police constable and was
being taken in a train.
• The thief escaped from a running train. The constable pursued
him.
• When the constable was not in a position to arrest him, he fired
at him.
• But, in that process, the shot hit other person and he died.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Dakhi Singh vs State Cont….

Here the Supreme Court referred to Section 46, Criminal
Procedure Code, which lays down that when a police officer
arrests a person and such person forcibly resists the endeavour to
arrest him or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer may
use all means necessary to effect the arrest; but this does not give a
right to cause the death of the person unless he is accused of an
offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
So the accused has exceeded his power and is covered under
exception 3 of sec 300 liable for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

Exception 4 – Sudden Fight:

• Where the death is caused without premeditation in a sudden fight
and in the heat of anger than it is culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
• Under this exception, the offender loses his power of reasoning
due to heat of passion aroused suddenly.
• The word sudden fight implies the absence of previous
deliberation or determination to fight.
• The word ‘fight’ conveys something more than a verbal quarrel. It
implies the exchange of blows.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Narayanan Nair Raghavan Nair vs State of

Travancore (AIR 1956 SC 99)
In this case, there was a fight between the accused and one
Velayuthan Nair. The deceased came up to them and tried
to separate them. Here Velayuthan was the son-in-law of the
deceased. The accused thereupon took the knife from his waist
and hit out at the deceased. The deceased tried to ward off the
blow and was hit in his left forearm. The accused struck again
and this time the blow landed on the chest and the person died.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Narayanan Nair Raghavan Nair vs State of

Travancore Cont…..
Here the Court rejected the contentions of the accused and held
that the accused had stabbed an unarmed man who
made no threats against him, but was merely trying to stop
the fight. The accused took undue advantage and stabbed
the deceased. So the Court held the accused guilty of Murder.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

Exception 5 – Consent:

Culpable Homicide is not Murder when;

i. The death was caused with the consent of the deceased.

ii. The deceased was then above 18 years of age.

iii. That such consent was free and voluntary and not given
through fear or misconception of facts.
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to
Murder

 Dasrath Paswan vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 Patna 190)

In this case, the accused who was a student of tenth class, failed in
his examination thrice in succession. He was upset and frustrated
by this failures and decided to put an end to his life and informed
his wife. The wife thereupon requested him to kill her first and
then kill himself. So the accused killed his wife but was arrested
before he could end his life. Here the Court held that this case
comes under exception 5 of sec 300 and therefore convicted the
accused for culpable homicide.
Distinction between Culpable Homicide and Murder

 R vs. Govinda [(1876) ILR 1 Bombay 342]

In this case, the accused knocked his wife down, put one knee on her chest,
struck her two-three violent blows on the face with a closed fist causing
extravasation of blood resulting in her death. Here the Court held the accused
guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as there was no
intention to cause death and bodily injury was not sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death.
Here the Court had made certain distinction between culpable homicide and
murder. The difference between the two is only in degrees of intention
and knowledge. If the degree of intention and knowledge is greater than
the case would fall under murder. If it is a lesser degree of intention and
knowledge than it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
 Distinction between Culpable
Homicide and Murder
 A practical approach to distinguish whether a particular case comes
under murder or culpable homicide is to appreciate the facts and
apply the law as follows:
1. The first stage is to determine whether the accused had done an
act, which has caused the death of another person.
2. The second stage is to establish whether the act of the accused
would amount to culpable homicide.
3. The next stage of enquiry is to ascertain whether the act would fall
under any of the four clauses of sec 300 of IPC.
4. The next stage is to determine whether the act falls within any of
the five exceptions provided u/s 300 of IPC. If it does not fall
under any of the exceptions than the act is murder. If the act falls
under any of the exceptions then it will be culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
 Comparison
• Section 299 • Section 300
• A person commits culpable • Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide
homicide if the act by which the is murder if the act by which death is caused is
death is caused is done- done;
• INTENTION
(a) with the intention of death or (1) with the intention of causing death;
(b) with the intention of such bodily (2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury
injuries as the is likely to cause which the offender knows to be likely to cause
death; the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused; or
(3) with the intention of causing bodily injury to
any person and the bodily injury intended to be
• KNOWLEDGE inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death;

(c) with the knowledge that the act • (4) with the knowledge that act is so
is likely to cause death imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death or such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death, and without any excuse
for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as is mentioned above.