Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Section 299 IPC: Law Notes with Cases and Illustrations

The right to private defence is dealt with under sections 96 to 109 of the IPC. According to Section 96, any act which is done while exercising the right or private defence is not considered an offence. Illustration: A and B while working in a building site engaged in a duel. A began to beat B with an iron rod. B was suddenly thrown into the ground. A continued to beat him. Suddenly B got another iron rod by which he hit A on his head. There was no other option for B than to hit him. He had no real intention to kill A. Here if he causes death of A, he will be liable for punishment under culpable homicide not amounting to murder


In Raj Singh versus State of Haryana[3], the Supreme Court held:


If we read together the right of private defence in IPC and Exception 2 to Section 300, it could be seen that culpable homicide is not murder if the accused exercised the right of private defence in good faith and in doing so he exceeds the said power and caused death of the person, provided the act was done without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than was actually necessary to prevent the danger. In cases where accused pleads self-defence, the first thing to consider is whether the accused had the right of private defence in the situation. If the answer is in the negative, he will not get the benefit of Exception 2 of Section 300. If the answer to the above question was in the affirmative, then the Court can look into whether the accused exceeded this right in contrast with the situation. If there is an absence of good faith in exercising the right and the accused premeditated for doing such act with intention of causing more harm than was necessary for preventing any danger, the benefit of the above exception will not be available. Further law does not confer a right of self-defence on a man when he himself was the aggressor.



In the present case, the victims’ group and accused’s group quarrelled with each other. The victims’ group was not armed with deadly weapons of any kind. But the accused’s group fired at them with a pistol. Here, the accused had the right of private defence, but there was no circumstance that this right could exceed in causing death. So in the light of the circumstances, the accused will not get the benefit of the Exception 2 above and will be convicted for Murder as per Section 300.

C. Exceeding public duty


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. 


The ingredients are as shown below:

• The person must be a public servant or aiding a public servant.
• He must be acting for the advancement of public justice.
• He should have power or is authorised to exercise such power.
• He exceeded such power while exercising it and causes death.
• He had no ill-will or enmity toward the person he killed.
• He truly and honestly believed that his act was lawful and necessary for discharging his duty.

Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider Exception 3 of Section 300 in Dukhi Singh versus The State[4]. The facts and findings were as follows:


Dukhi Singh, a Railway Protection Police constable along with his head-officer and other constables were travelling from one station to another by train. In a station where the train halted, he saw a person under suspicious circumstances who was seen taking away something from a wagon. In fact, the person was holding a contract for the collection of burning cinders which he was removing from the railway track with the help of some men. There were previous complaints with RPP that sugar bags were being tampered in the station. Dukhi Singh, arrested the man and took him to his compartment. The prosecution version is that after the train started moving, the arrested person ran toward the engine. Dukhi Singh followed him. He mistook that the driver and fireman had harboured the thief. He shot the fireman and he later died in hospital.


Appellant, pleaded that he was under orders from his Head officer to shoot the thief. He had no intention to kill the fireman. He shot the fireman by accident. After considering the evidence which includes the dying declaration of the fireman, the Court concluded that the appellant was a public servant and he has exceeded the powers given to him by law and thereby caused the death of the fireman. The point is that he believed that such an act was necessary for the due discharge of his lawful duty which he did in good faith. Also, there was no ill-will for the appellant towards the fireman. In these circumstances, his case will fall under Section 304 Part II culpable homicide not amounting to murder.



D. Sudden fight


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 having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 


The ingredients of the Exception are:
There must be a sudden fight.
There must be a sudden quarrel and a consequent heat of passion.
The person killed another in such circumstance.
He did not act cruelly and only did the act in consequence of the heat of passion.


Illustration: A and B quarrelled. Suddenly B hit A. A was provoked and hit back B with an iron rod lying nearby. On the first hit B fell down and later he died. If A had continued to hit B even after he fell down and thereby caused his death, he would have been punished for murdering B. In this case, he has only committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.


In Byvarapu Raju versus State of Andhrapradesh and another[5], the Supreme Court held that a ‘sudden fight’ in Exception 4 implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1.

The Supreme Court in Nandla versus State of Maharashtra[6] had occasion to consider Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The court held that in order to bring a case within the above exception, the following conditions must be satisfied:

• The act must be committed by the accused in a sudden fight in heat of passion. He should not premeditate the act.
• Sudden quarrelling must happen which led to the act.
• The offender must not take undue advantage.
• The accused must not act in a cruel or unusual manner.
• If the weapon or manner is disproportionate to the offence and thus took undue advantage of the deceased, the accused will not get protection under Exception 4 to Section 300.

In this case, the appellant’s relative who is also his neighbour constructed a common wall in between his premises and the house of the appellant. He demanded half of the expense from the appellant which was refused by him. Thus quarrels started between them. PW 1 and his brother (deceased) went to the appellant’s relative’s house and tried to pacify the situation and in that process, the deceased abused the appellant. The appellant hit the deceased with a stick. Then PW1 hit the appellant. Then appellant returned home and brought a weapon and he also took other two accused with him who were also carrying weapons. Appellant’s relative and PW5 moved aside seeing them. But PW5’s brother (deceased) was physically disabled and he could not move faster and he was hit by the appellant with the weapon. The other two accused did attack him. He sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to his injuries. The trial court sentenced the accused under Section 302 IPC(punishment for murder) along with Section 34(common intention). High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant.



In the Supreme Court, the appellant raised the plea of “sudden fight”. But the State denied it and said that the act of returning of the appellant to his house and thereafter carrying a weapon to attack the deceased will not fall in the exception of a sudden fight. The Supreme Court held that apart from the main things, it must also be proved that the offender has not taken undue advantage or “unfair advantage” in the act. The accused’s house was very near to his relative’s house. So there was no time gap to bring the weapon. Further the deceased first abused the appellant and thus the incident started. The appellant then attacked the deceased and thereafter PW1 attacked the appellant and then the appellant ran to his house and immediately brought a weapon and inflicted a single injury by him. These acts constitute a single action and cannot be divided into parts. Thus the element of sudden quarrel, the heat of passion was there. The conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC.


A similar case was heard by the Supreme Court in Sukhbir Singh versus State of Haryana[7]. In this case, a sweeper while cleaning throw mud on the accused. The accused abused the sweeper. The father of sweeper quarrelled with the accused. The accused went away and immediately returned with others and inflicted injury on the victim. The Court found that the gap between the injury and quarrel was only for a few minutes. There was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. The blows were not repeated. So, it cannot be said that the accused acted cruelly. Thus he was given the benefit of Exception 4 and the case was converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

E. Consent causing death



As per the Exception 5 of Section 300, culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused is above 18 years of age and he himself consented to his death.



Here the main thing is consent. This consent must be free. The age factor in this exception implies the intention of the legislature to mean free consent. The consent mentioned here must be voluntary and not be induced by any other circumstances.


In Queen-Empress versus Nayamuddin and others[8], High Court of Calcutta defined Consent.



Consent under the IPC is not valid if obtained by either misrepresentation or concealment,. It should imply not only a knowledge of the risk involved but a judgment by the victim in regard to the risk, a deliberate free act of the mind. Furthermore, for applying this exception, it must be found that the deceased with full knowledge of the facts, determined to suffer death or take the risk of death, and this determination continued up to the happening of the act, and existed at, the moment of his death. 


In Dasrath Paswan versus State of Bihar[9] Patna High Court decided upon this exception.  The appellant failed annual examination for three years in succession. Being upset about this fact, he left his home and village for about a week. Later, he returned and told his wife that he is going to kill himself. But his loyal and loving wife told him to first kill her and thereafter end his life. They decided to end their lives as such and he killed his wife. Then he was caught by people before he could kill himself. Circumstances proved that the wife had given her consent to be killed without any fear or misconception. She was above 18 years of age. Thus the case was one to fit in the exception 5 of Section 300 which means culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Footnote

1. (1919) 37 MLJ 17
2. 2018 SCC
3. Criminal Appeal Nos: 702-704 of 2015
4. AIR 1955 All 379, 1955 CriLJ 905.
5. (2007) 11 SCC 21
6. (2019) 5 SCC 224
7.  (2002) 3 SCC 327
8.  (1891) ILR 18 Cal 484
9. AIR 1958 Pat 190, 1958 (6) BLJR 60, 1958 CriLJ 548

Thanks for reading this post. There is a large number of cases and incidents to describe the topic covered in this post. We would be updating the post in the near future in our routine revival process. Please stay with us. 


Disclaimer: The content of this post is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. To know our detailed Disclaimer, go to this link.