Introduction

The Indian Penal Code is a comprehensive set of rules in India that govern criminal
acts. Offences Affecting the Human Body are one of the principal categories of
offences covered by the IPC. This section contains homicide, assault, and other
violent crimes that endanger a person’s physical well-being. In this article, we will
look at two provisions from the Indian Penal Code that fall under this
category: Sections 299 and 300.

Culpable Homicide under Section 299

Culpable Homicide is dealt with in Section 299 of the IPC. The word “culpable
homicide” refers to the act of killing another human. According to the provision,
culpable homicide is committed when the act that causes death is done with the
purpose to cause death or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. It also
encompasses circumstances when the act is committed with the purpose to inflict
bodily harm that is likely to result in death, or with knowledge that such bodily harm
is likely to result in death.

Elements of Culpable Homicide

When assessing culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC, three important
criteria must be examined.

 To begin, the accused must have been responsible for the death of another
person.
 Second, the accused must have had the purpose to kill or knowledge that the
act is likely to kill.
 Finally, the act of causing death must have occurred without justification or
excuse within the law.

A case of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code might be one
in which a person strikes another person with a dangerous weapon, such as a knife,
with the goal of inflicting death, and the victim dies as a consequence of the attack. In
this situation, the perpetrator of the crime may face culpable murder charges under
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. However, if the conduct was performed in self-
defence, the act may not be termed culpable murder.

Murder under Section 300

Murder is dealt with in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder is one of the
most serious offences under the IPC and is punished by life in prison or the death
sentence. However, not all homicides are considered murder by the law. In some
cases, a person may be charged with culpable homicide, which is a lower offence than
murder.

Elements of Murder
Section 300 of the IPC states that a person is guilty of murder if the following factors
are present:

1. The act of causing death: The accused must have killed another person.
2. The purpose to cause death: The accused must have had the intent to kill the
victim. Alternatively, the accused must have known that their conduct were
likely to result in the victim’s death.
3. The act was committed with the knowledge that it would result in death:
The accused must have been aware that their acts were likely to result in the
victim’s death.

If all three factors are present, the offender might face murder charges.

If any of these factors is missing, the accused may not be convicted of murder but may
be guilty of culpable homicide. For example, if a person kills another person but did
not plan to kill them, they may be charged with culpable homicide but not murder.
Similarly, if a person kills another person without understanding that their acts were
likely to result in death, they may be guilty of culpable homicide but not murder.

A basic example of this principle is when someone gets into a fight with another
person and hits them. The person collapses and smashes their head, killing them. If the
individual who punched the victim did not mean to kill them and had no idea their
actions would result in death, they may be guilty of culpable homicide but not murder.

Exceptions to Murder

Murder, which is considered the most terrible crime in Indian law, is defined under
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. There are certain exceptions to this rule, which
implies that a person may not be charged with murder even though they caused the
death of another person. Section 300 specifically mentions the following exceptions:

1. Grave and Sudden Provocation: If a person kills another person in the heat of
passion as a result of grave and sudden provocation, they may not be charged
with murder. This exemption applies if the provocation is so severe and
immediate that it deprives the individual of self-control and causes them to kill
the other person.
2. Exercise of Right to Private Defence: If a person kills another person while
exercising their right to private defence, they may not be charged with murder.
This exemption applies if the individual reasonably believes that they are
facing death or serious bodily damage and that the only option to defend
themselves is to kill the other person.
3. Public servant acting in good faith: If a public worker kills another person
while operating in good faith and carrying out their official responsibilities,
they may not be charged with murder.
4. Sudden Fight: If two people have a sudden fight and one of them kills the
other in the heat of passion produced by the fight, they may not be charged
with murder.
5. Consent: If a person kills another person with their consent, they may not be
charged with murder. This exemption, however, only applies if the permission
 was provided willingly and with full awareness of the nature and consequences
of the act.

It is vital to remember that the courts closely interpret these exceptions, and the
accused bears the burden of demonstrating them. If the prosecution can establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of murder, these exceptions will
not apply, and the accused will be found guilty.

Difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder

Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code distinguish between culpable homicide
and murder. While both charges entail the taking of a human life, there are important
distinctions between them.

Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide as causing the death of a person
with the purpose to cause death or with knowledge that such an act is likely to cause
death, but without any of the specified aggravating elements that would render the
crime murder. These situations include, but are not limited to, employing poison or
explosives to cause death, or causing death while performing an act punishable by
death or life imprisonment.

Murder under section 300 of the IPC, on the other hand, requires causing the death of
a person with the purpose to cause death or with knowledge that such an act is likely
to cause death, as well as any of the particular aggravating circumstances listed in the
section.

The existence or absence of explicit intent to cause death is one of the main
distinctions between culpable homicide and murder. The intention to cause death may
be present in culpable homicide, but it may also be absent, with the perpetrator having
simply awareness that their act is likely to cause death. Murder always involves the
purpose to cause death or the knowledge that such a conduct is likely to result in
death.

Another key distinction between the two offences is the severity of the punishment.
While both culpable homicide and murder are serious offences, murder carries a
harsher penalty. Murder is penalised by life in prison or the death penalty, whilst
culpable homicide is penalised by up to 10 years in jail, a fine, or both.

To summarise, the distinctions between culpable homicide under section 299 and
murder under section 300 of the IPC are essentially determined by the existence or
lack of intent to cause death, as well as the precise aggravating circumstances that
raise the offence to murder. It is critical that legal experts and the general public grasp
these distinctions in order to guarantee that justice is done in situations involving the
loss of life.
Landmark Cases

The following are a few landmark cases on culpable homicide and murder which will
help illustrate the differences between the two better.

The accused in Prasad Swanker v. Ranjit Kumar was charged with murder, but he
maintained that he acted in self-defence to protect himself. The deceased was
suspected of being engaged in a robbery, which strengthened his claim of self-
defence. The court determined that the evidence gathered from the crime scene and
the injuries received by the accused increased the likelihood that the plea of self-
defence was true. As a consequence, the accused’s murder conviction was reversed
and upheld by the court.

In the case of Subha Naik v. R, a constable killed someone on the orders of a higher
authority. However, it was discovered that neither the constable nor his superiors
thought that shooting on a specific group was required for public safety. As a result,
the policeman was charged with murder because he failed to follow the directions of
his superiors.

This implies that even if a person is obeying their superiors’ directions, they can still
be charged with murder if it is shown that they did not act in line with the law or in
the interest of public safety. Individuals must ensure that they are acting within the
bounds of the law, even if they are acting on commands from superiors, in order to
avoid being held legally accountable for their activities