[made for my assignment] Culpable Homicide has a broad ambit of criminal activities causing death of a human being. Within its larger ambit of culpable homicide, Murder is only a distinguished set of actions. Accordingly, culpable homicide is classified as amounting to murder or not amounting to murder although the consequence of both kinds of acts is death of a human being. Mathematically, murder is a subset of Culpable homicide while in biological terms, relation between Culpable Homicide and Murder is of the Genus and species respectively. Very often, there are questions of facts involved in an act causing death which are primarily responsible to decide the death out of ‘Culpable homicide amounting to murder’ or out of ‘Culpable homicide not-amounting to murder’
The phrase ‘Culpable Homicide’ is made of two words Culpable and Homicide. ‘Culpable’ owes its origin to Latin word ‘culpabilis’ meaning worthy of blame or deserving punishment. ‘Homicide’ also owes its root to another Latin word ‘homo’ meaning a human and ‘caedere’ meaning to cut or kill.
The offence of Culpable Homicide under Indian Penal Code has been placed under the ‘offences affecting life’ or unlawful homicide spanning section over 299 to 318.
2.Culpable Homicide Under Indian Penal Code
Section 299 defines Culpable Homicide as: “299. Culpable homicide- 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.”
Plain reading of the section 299 suggests that three broad versions of Culpable Homicide are possible viz. i) act with the intention of causing death; ii) knowledge that the act being done is likely to cause death and iii) intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Ingredients as seen are: Death of human, Bodily Injury, Act with Intention and Act with Knowledge.
3.Murder Under Indian Penal Code
As the Murder is only a set of acts under wide range of acts under Culpable homicide, the Murder should essentially have all the ingredients of culpable homicide of course, with some additional attributes. Let’s see the definition of Murder as provided under section 300 of the IPC.
“300. Murder- 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—
2ndly—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—
3rdly—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—
4thly—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.”
On close observation of the definition of Murder there appears 5 broad versions of Murder (subject to exceptions) including: i) act with the intention of causing death; ii) act with intention of causing such bodily injury knowing that the person being harmed would die; iii) act with intention of causing bodily injury, sufficient to cause death of any person iv)act knowing that it is imminently dangerous to cause death, without any excuse or justification v) act to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, without any excuse or justification.
Ingredients, as apparent for all these versions of murder are: Death of human, Bodily Injury, Act with Intention, Act with Knowledge. So, ingredient wise there is no difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder; what makes the difference is degree of Injury, Intention and Knowledge. Thus, provisions for Murder involves aggravated degree of injury and mens rea as compared to that of a culpable homicide. And further, wherever there is existence of defined Exceptions, the murder will turn out to be a Culpable homicide (or Culpable homicide not amounting the murder)
3.1. Exceptions to Murder Under IPC
The Indian Penal Code provides for certain exceptions too under section 300, on existence of which Murder will assume the nature and description of Culpable Homicide or Culpable Homicide NOT amounting to murder. The gist of five such exceptions as provided under the section could be enumerated as follows:
(i)Grave and Sudden Provocation;
(ii)Right of Private Defense;
(iii)Public Servant exceeding his powers;
(iv)Sudden fight
(v)Consent by eligible
Elucidation of these points are the self-explanatory exceptions themselves given under the section
Exception 1. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by 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 sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
- 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.
- is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
It has been clarified that: whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
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.
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.
It has been clarified that 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.
In short, the act to be adjudged as Culpable homicide amounting to murder will include aggravated and higher degree of 3 ingredients viz: Intention, knowledge and bodily injury and moreover the act should not fall under the 5 exceptions as laid under section 300.
4.Culpable homicide Causing Death to Unintended Person
The Indian Penal Code provides a separate section viz. section 301 for such deaths which are caused in spree of act aimed at causing death to someone else.
Section 301 reads as: “301. Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.—If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to he likely to cause.”
The essence of the provisions of section 301 is expressive of the fact that the intention of the offender whose action causes death of the person other than targeted one is immaterial and the offender will be tried as per usual descriptions of Culpable homicide(may amount to murder/may not amount to murder). The underlying legal principle is regarded as the ‘principle of transferred intent or transferred knowledge’ or ‘doctrine of the transfer of malice’.
5.Distinction & Similarity Between Culpable Homicide & Murder
5.1. If we compare the definitions provided under section 299 and 300 with reference of grievous hurt (of course, a narrow reference) for example, the following picture emerges:
| Act done with intention of causing death | Act done with intention of causing death |
| Bodily injury which is likely to cause death | bodily injury which he knows to be likely to cause the death of the person being harmed (grievous hurt to an infirm person) |
| bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death (manner and force of causing grievous hurt) | |
| bodily injury as is likely to cause death, inflicted without any excuse (grievous hurt with no excuse) | |
| Act with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death | the act knowing about, is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, without any excuse (impact of grievous hurt is foreseen) |
Comparison between the keywords used in defining Culpable Homicide and Murder shows that (i) Culpable homicide includes in it Murder and (ii)Culpable Homicide involving grievous hurt of any kind with higher degree of intention and/or knowledge can turn out to be a Murder.
5.2. Both, the definitions of Culpable homicide and Murder postulate that causing death or bodily injury as to cause death is never possible without intention and/or, knowledge and the sections 299 & 300 both lay down some degree of this mens-rea required for crime. Comparing the provisions on the basis of intention and knowledge gives an interesting picture too.
| an act with the intention of causing death | act is done with the intention of causing death |
| intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death | 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 |
| intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary to cause death | |
| knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death | Committing act which he knows is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, without any excuse ‘OR’ |
| Committing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and still commits, without any excuse. | |
In this comparison chart the underlined phrases are the elements of knowledge present in the act of offender. As obvious, ‘knowledge of likely death’ or ‘foreseeability of death’ is present in all the variations of offence.
It could be easily seen from the comparison that the first proposition of section 299 and 300 are the same on the count of ‘intention of causing death’. Accordingly, ‘Murder’ is included within the ‘Culpable Homicide’, meaning that; whenever there is prima facie intention of causing death, the culpable homicide is a murder.
Confusion lies on the lines of (a) ‘presence and absence’ of intention involved in causing bodily injury (b) accuracy of knowledge on probability of death and (c)grave and sudden provocations; all being question of facts and matter of evidence. Causing bodily injury in sudden provocation (The offender has knowledge that injury may cause death) would amount to ‘Culpable Homicide NOT amounting to Murder’ but causing bodily injury upon an invited provocation (having knowledge that injury will most probably cause death) would amount to ‘Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder’.
Firing at a mark on top of a shop (no intention to kill/injure someone, but act could likely cause death of someone- an act with no excuse/justification) may amount to ‘Culpable Homicide NOT amounting to Murder’ but firing at a mark close to an open gathering (no intention to kill/injure someone, but act most likely cause death of someone, an act with no excuse/justification)) may amount to ‘Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder’. Similarly, rash driving on a highway in comparison to rash driving in a narrow lane passing through residential area (no intention to kill/injure anyone in both but the latter has most probability to knock someone down, for no justification) would be example where the latter act may amount to ‘Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder’.
So, the approach could be that, if the intention in an injury is found rooted, the act with intense degree of intention to cause injury will lead into Culpable homicide amounting to murder. But where the intention is absent, the act with ‘knowledge of highly probable death and with no justification’ whatsoever, will lead to ‘Culpable homicide amounting to murder’. The practical situations confronted by the prosecution and court however, is that the facts are not obvious and distinct enough to conclude as such.
The most perplexing dilemma before court emerges when it is difficult to interpret from the evidences, whether the intention was to cause merely bodily injury not murder OR there was a clear intention to take life of the victim. Facts & Circumstances are usually so complex that deciding the nature and degree of intention oftentimes gets difficult. Accordingly, when deaths are because of inflicted injury deciding between cold-blood offence (amounting to murder) or without plan (Culpable Homicide) becomes an uphill task for investigation probability of miscarriage of justice creeps up.
5.3. Comparison as Drawn in Reg v. Govinda, 1876
The then High Court Bombay for the convenience of comparison, arranged the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code as follows:
Section 299.
A person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused is done
(a) With the intention of causing death;
(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death:
(c) With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
Section 300.
Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done:
(1) With the intention of causing death;
(2) 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) 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;
(4) With the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
And went on making analysis that:
#(a) and (1) show that where there is an intention to kill, the offence is always murder.
#(b) and (3) gives impression that the offence is culpable homicide, if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death; it is murder, if such injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is much the same distinction as that between (c) and (4). It is about a question of degree of probability.
#(c) and (4) appear to be intended to apply (not meant that they are necessarily limited) to cases in which there is no intention to cause death or bodily injury. Furious driving, firing at a mark near a public road, would be cases of this description. Whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder, depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide; if it is the most probable result, it is murder.
#The essence of (2) appears to be to be found in the words which are underlined as: “The offence is murder, if the offender knows that the particular person injured is likely, either from peculiarity of constitution, or immature age, or other special circumstance, to be killed by an injury which would not ordinarily cause death.”
The case of Reg v Govinda was based on drawing comparison between (b) and (3). The court held that dilemma in siding with (b) or 3 could practically resolve itself into a consideration of the nature of the weapon used. A blow from the fist or a stick on a vital part may be likely to cause death; a wound from a sword in a vital part is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The court had held the facts of the nature under (b) and had modified the order of sessions to be Culpable homicide NOT amounting to murder.
5.4. Sections Pertaining to Culpable Homicide and Murder
Culpable Homicide
Section 299: Defines offence of culpable homicide
Section 304: Punishment for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 304 A: Causing death by negligence does not amount to culpable homicide.
Section 301: Defines when death caused unintended can become culpable homicide (could amount to murder or not amounting to murder of both description)
Section 308: Attempt to commit culpable homicide.
Murder
Section 300: Defines offence of Murder, with certain exceptions;
Section 302: Punishment for offence of murder is provided under this section.
Section 303: It makes capital punishment necessary for the person who is convicted for life imprisonment commits murder. Only applicable to the person who is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 or Section 149.
Section 307: Attempt to Murder
6. Punishments for Culpable Homicide and Murder
Punishment for Culpable homicide (defined under 299) has been dealt under section 304 whereas punishment for Murder (defined under section 300) has been dealt under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 302 reads as “302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 304 reads as: “304 Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term 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, or with fine, or with both, 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.”
On appreciation of the spirit of sections 302 & 304 along with the definitions under sections 299 & 300, it appears that although there is no precise formulation for awarding punishments but what logic can provide is following under comparison table:
| Offence | Punishment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Murder u/s 300 (Part I, II, III & IV) and u/s. 299 Part I | Death or imprisonment for life with fine (u/s. 302) | Punishment well defined |
| Culpable Homicide NOT amounting to Murder (u/s 300 Part I, II, III & IV falling under exceptions) | Imprisonment for life (u/s. 304 part I) | Death or Injury is caused with intention (part IV higher probability) |
| Culpable Homicide NOT amounting to Murder (u/s. 299 Part II) | Imprisonment extending up to 10 years with fine (u/s. 304 part I) | Injury is caused with intention |
| Culpable Homicide NOT amounting to Murder (u/s. 299 Part II) | Imprisonment extending up to 10 years or fine or both (u/s. 304 part II) | Act is done with foreseeability sans Intention |
6.1. Broad Analysis of Punitive Consequences
Analysing the provisions under both the sections dealing with punishment gives forth insightful distinction between the offences of Culpable Homicide and Murder. Importantly, the analysis as to what is common to the offences and what is special to each one of them has formed the ratio of various pronouncements. The offence of culpable homicide is an offence which may or may not be murder. If it is murder, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder, for which punishment is prescribed in Section 302 of the Code. Section 304 deals with cases not covered by Section 302 and it divides the offence into two distinct classes, that is (a) those in which the death is intentionally caused; and (b) those in which the death is caused unintentionally but knowingly. In the former scenario, the sentence of imprisonment is compulsory and the maximum sentence admissible is imprisonment for life. In the latter case, imprisonment is only optional, and the maximum sentence only extends to imprisonment for 10 years. The first portion of this section includes only those cases in which offence is really ‘murder’, but mitigated by the presence of few elements presents in the exceptions to section 300 of the Code, the second clause deals only with the cases in which the accused has no intention of causing injury leading to death of anyone in particular.
7. Case Laws on Culpable Homicide and Murder
7.1. Reg v. Govinda, 1976
One of the finest distinctions between ‘Culpable Homicide’ and Murder:
Facts of the case: A young man of 18 named Govinda, kicked his wife, a girl of 15 and struck her several times with his fist on the back. She fell on the ground and Govinda then put one knee on her chest and struck her two- three times on the face. Medical evidences showed that fists had been violent that took effect on the girl’s left eye, producing contusion and discoloration. The skull was not fractured, but the blow caused an extravasation of blood on the brain and the girl died in consequence either on the spot, or very shortly afterwards. On this state of facts, the Sessions Judge and the assessors found Govinda guilty of ‘Murder’ and he had been sentenced to death.
The then hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that there was not an intention to cause death; nor the bodily injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Of course, a violent blow in the eye from a man’s fist can cause death either by producing concussion or extravasation of blood. Accordingly, based on lack of intention and lesser degree of death probability Govinda was found guilty of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’
7.2. Rampal Singh vs State of U.P, 2012
‘Culpable Homicide’ is genus and ‘Murder’ its species:
The Hon’ble Court stated that in the scheme of the Penal Code, ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ as its species. All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, ‘culpable homicide’ sans ‘special characteristics of murder’, is ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. Hon’ble court further elucidated that in order to fix punishment according to proportionate gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in section 300 as ‘murder’. The second may be termed as ‘culpable homicide of the second degree’ which is punishable under the first part of section 304. Then, there is ‘culpable homicide of the third degree.’ This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest dealt under the second Part of section 304. This interpretation relied for judgement was actually borrowed from the Judgement of State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya & Anr. 1976.
7.3. State Of A.P.vs R. Punnayya & Anr. 1976
A broader guideline to decide whether the offence would fall into Culpable Homicide or Murder:
The Apex court held that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is ‘murder’ or ‘culpable homicide not-amounting to murder’ on the facts of a case, it could be convenient to approach the problem in three stages.
The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act that caused the death of another. Proofs of such causal connections between the act of the accused and the death leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined in section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of section 300, Penal Code is reached.
This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of murder’ contained in section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative; the offence would be ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’, punishable under the first or the second part of section 304, depending respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated in section 300, the offence would still be ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ punishable under the first Part of section 304, Penal Code.
The court however stated that these interpretations are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives. Hon’ble court further stated that whereas in most cases, this observance would facilitate the decision making of a court, in others, the facts being so inter-twined, treating the second and the third stage distinctively may be difficult.
7.4. Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P, 2006
The judgement of the Apex court elucidates Transferred Intent underlying Section 301.
In the case of Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P.: The Apex Court came heavily on the Allahabad High Court for not considering Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code in the present case. Fact of the case was that, a girl died of a bullet which was fired on another person. The High Court held that there was mistake involved and there was no intention of the accused to kill the girl. As there was question of law involved in the matter the victim side approached Supreme Court and hon’ble court held that the intention of the accused has to be ignored in said act of accused case. The Supreme court found that the Allahabad High Court’s judgement was wrong as it was based on erroneous reasoning bypassing the provisions under section 301 of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused/ defendant was held liable for culpable homicide.
7.5. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1961
Lapse of time after enraging information doesn’t allow exception of Provocation:
K.M. Nanavati Was a Naval Officer married to Sylvia. Owing to shipping exigencies he frequently remained out of Mumbai leaving behind his wife and kids. Sylvia had developed illicit legitimacy with one Ahuja and one fine day she confessed the same to husband. This enraged Nanavati, he drove his wife and kids to a Cinema and drove back to his ship. He took out service revolver alongwith cartridge and went to Ahuja’s office. Not finding him there he drove to Ahuja’s flat and shot him dead, the Bombay High found him guilty of offence under Section 300. The appeal was filed in Supreme Court and the defense given was that the petitioner had an altercation which provoked him for the matter being related to his wife and then he shot him dead and hence, offence shouldn’t fall under murder.
The Apex court though marked that when Sylvia confessed to the petitioner the deceased was not present there so, he must have momentarily lost his self-control but would have regained during the time elapsed during driving his family to cinema, driving to ship, arranging revolver and reaching to Ahuja’s flat. The whole approach of petitioner indicates that he had not only regained his self-control, but he was also planning for the future. Between 1-30 P.M., when he left his house, and 4-20 P.M., when the murder took place, three hours had elapsed, and therefore there was sufficient time for him to regain his self-control, even if he had not regained it earlier. However, conduct of petitioner shows “that the murder was a deliberate and calculated one.” And that “Even if any conversation took place between the accused and the deceased in the manner described by the accused …it does not affect the question, for the accused entered the bed-room of the deceased to shoot him.” Accordingly, the Apex court held that “the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.” The Bollywood movie namely Rustom is believed to made on the precepts of the case however, facts have been changed to change the outcome.
8. Concluding Note on Culpable Homicide
Culpable Homicide essentially means an unlawful homicide. This gives rise the notion that Homicide cannot always be culpable or unlawful. A corollary to this is that there could be lawful homicides too, where the accused has a valid reason to cause death of another. Under those instances of homicide, the person may not be tried by the law and can accordingly get exemptions from the charges. The lawful homicides in its ambit can include death caused in self-defence or by mistake of fact or in a course bonafide execution of the law etc. In general, Lawful Homicide may include justifiable and excusable homicide for which general defences are available under sections 76 to 106 or IPC. On the other hand, unlawful Homicide may include death by rash and negligent act (Sec 304-A), suicide (Sec 309), culpable homicide etc. all covered between sections 299 and 318
8.1. When we talk about someone being punished for offence of culpable homicide it is understood that the punishment is for ‘Culpable homicide not amounting the murder’. On the other hand, when someone is punished for the offence of Murder the offence is of ‘Culpable homicide amounting to Murder’. The debates on Culpable Homicide vis-a-vis Murder are actually about articulation of differences between ‘Culpable Homicide NOT amounting to Murder’ and ‘Culpable Homicide amounting to murder’. Culpable homicide is covered under sections 299, 301 & 304 while Murder has been covered under sections 300, 301, 302, 303.
8.2. The sections dealing with culpable homicides use words “Likely” very frequently that gives unnecessary scope for ambiguity. This at times, can lead to miscarriage of justice. I feel the phrases within sections should be replaced by more precise ones leaving least scope for using the ‘likely’ words. Also, at a time when judicial system across the world has matured enough, endeavors should be in place to define elaborate set of acts and situations amounting to murder or otherwise. Least possible scope for confusions should be left. In the absence of a defined set of ‘acts and situations’ the inevitable ambiguity also gives an edge to high and mighty and the people at lower strata suffer the injustice.
8.3. The sections of IPC define Culpable Homicide but homicide is not defined anywhere under IPC. It is also critically seen that the Culpable Homicides and Murder are two distinct offences in terms of their punishment but their definitions are confusingly overlapping which leads inevitable errors in passing judgements. The offences held as murder at lower courts are most often overturned by the Appellate forums which creates unnecessary burdens on judges and justice seekers both. By some quarters it is also suggested the crux of the offence i.e, murder’ should be defined under a single and self-contained section. It is argued that the two sections should be modified to the extent that categorical demarcations or strait jacket differences could be made out.
8.4. The IPC was made more 150 years ago when the intricacies of the facts and circumstances involved in culpable homicides and offences in general, was not of the degree faced in the modern world order. So, the statute needs upgradation to cope up with modern times’ nuances of offence; no static law can address the evolving dynamics of society and offences.
Check other Valuable Posts for LLB Mumbai Univ here!