Culpable Homicide and Murder are both terms used to describe the unlawful killing of a human being. However, there are some differences between the two.
Culpable homicide refers to the killing of a person, but where the act was not intended to cause death. It may have been an accidental killing, or it may have been done in self-defense or with the intention of causing bodily harm but not death. The term “culpable” means that the person responsible for the killing is at fault, but they did not necessarily intend to cause the death.
Murder, on the other hand, refers to the intentional killing of a person. It is a premeditated act, where the perpetrator had the intention of causing death or serious bodily harm. The term “murder” is used when the act was done with malice aforethought, meaning the perpetrator acted with the intent to kill or with a depraved indifference to human life.
Punishment for Culpable Homicide under IPC
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), culpable homicide is divided into two categories:
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304) and Death caused by negligence (Section 304A).
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304) is punishable by imprisonment for a term which may extend to life imprisonment, or with a fine, or with both. The punishment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, such as the degree of negligence, the presence of intention, and the nature of the act.
Death caused by negligence (Section 304A) is punishable by imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both. This section applies when death is caused by a rash or negligent act, but without the intention to cause death or grievous hurt.
It is important to note that the punishment for culpable homicide may vary based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and the court has the discretion to determine the appropriate punishment.
Punishment for Murder under IPC
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), murder is defined as the intentional killing of a person with premeditation and is punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The punishment for murder is life imprisonment or death sentence, at the discretion of the court.
The term “life imprisonment” means imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life, unless the sentence is commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority.
It is important to note that the punishment for murder may vary based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and the court has the discretion to determine the appropriate punishment. In certain cases, such as honor killings or murders involving public servants or minors, the punishment may be enhanced.
In summary, the main difference between culpable homicide and murder is the intent behind the killing. If the killing was unintentional or the result of a reckless act, it may be considered culpable homicide. If the killing was intentional and premeditated, it is considered murder.
Here are some examples of prominent case laws related to culpable homicide under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961): In this case, a naval officer was accused of shooting and killing his wife’s lover. The court held that the killing was not premeditated and did not constitute murder but was culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1975): In this case, the accused fired a shot in the air, which accidentally hit and killed a bystander. The court held that the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (1988): In this case, the accused was driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and caused an accident resulting in the death of a person. The court held that the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- R. v. Adomako (1994): This is a landmark case from the United Kingdom that is often cited in Indian courts. The case involved a doctor who failed to notice a disconnected oxygen supply tube during surgery, resulting in the patient’s death. The court held that the doctor’s conduct constituted gross negligence and constituted manslaughter.
These cases highlight the importance of proving mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) in order to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They also emphasize the importance of determining the specific circumstances of each case in order to determine the appropriate punishment.
Here are some examples of prominent case laws related to murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
- State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Kumar Singh (2010): In this case, the accused was found guilty of kidnapping, raping and murdering a law student. The court held that the crime was premeditated and brutal, and sentenced the accused to death.
- State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2000): In this case, the accused was found guilty of murdering his wife by setting her on fire. The court held that the act was premeditated and constituted murder, and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.
- Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988): In this case, the accused was found guilty of conspiring with others to assassinate the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi. The court held that the act constituted murder and sentenced the accused to death.
- People v. Jose Erap Estrada (2007): This is a landmark case from the Philippines involving the former President of the country who was accused of plunder and murder. The court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua (imprisonment for up to 40 years).
These cases highlight the seriousness of murder and the importance of proving mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) and premeditation in order to establish the crime. They also underscore the importance of the specific circumstances of each case in determining the appropriate punishment.
