SUPREME COURT: Death sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court converted into life imprisonment.

LATEST JUDGEMENT

SUPREME COURT: Death sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court converted into life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court in the judgement dated 24.04.2020 in the case of Arvind Singh Versus State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal Nos. 640-641 OF 2016 directed against the judgement and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench)

on 5th May, 2016 whereby the appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction for offences punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was dismissed by confirming the death sentence imposed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

The Supreme Court while considering all the circumstances and facts on record, opined that the present case falls short of the “rarest of rare” cases where a death sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the appellants. 

The Court said that:- 

"It appears to us in light of all cumulative circumstances that the cause of justice will be effectively served by invoking the concept of special sentencing as evolved by this Court in the cases of Swamy Shraddananda and Sriharan."

 

The Supreme Court Held-

"The death sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, is converted into the life imprisonment. It is further observed and directed that the life means till the end of the life with the further observation and direction that there shall not be any remission till the accused completes 25 years of imprisonment."

READ FULL JUDGEMENT BELOW:-

 

Husband's entitled for decree of divorce on ground of cruelty. HMA, 1955 Section 13(1)(i-a) - IPC, 1860 Section 498A Divorce - Cruelty - Acquittal in Trial against offence under Section 498A

Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani (SC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.

Civil Appeal No.8871 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 1981 of 2019). D/d. 19.11.2019.

Rani Narasimha Sastry - Appellants

Versus

Rani Suneela Rani - Respondents

For the Appellants :- Petitioner-in-person.

For the Respondents :- Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate (A.C.) with Mrs. Neha Sharma and Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Advocates.

IMPORTANT

Cruelty - Acquittal in Trial against offence under Section 498A - Husband's entitled for decree of divorce on ground of cruelty.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(i-a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 498A Divorce - Criminal case under Section 498A - Cruelty - When a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of allegation of offence under Section 498A of IPC, levelled by wife against husband, amounts to cruelty on husband - Husband entitled to decree of divorce - Direction to husband to pay maintenance for daughter Rs.2000/- per month.

[Paras 14 and 16]

Cases Referred :

State of AP through PS L.B. Nagar v. Rani Narasimha Sastry, C.C. No.672/2007.

Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334.

ORDER

Ashok Bhushan, J. - Leave granted.

2. Appellant appeared in-person. The respondent, despite service did not appear. This Court, vide order dated 16.09.2019, appointed Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel, as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent.

3. We have heard the appellant appearing in-person as well as Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent.

4. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 14.08.2005 at Annavaram Sri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana Swamy Temple of East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. After marriage appellant and respondent lived together until 17.01.2007 and thereafter they have been living separately for more than 10 years.

5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 05.01.2017 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1279/2011. The appellant has filed O.P. No.109/2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") praying for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. The petition was filed basically on two grounds, namely, cruelty as well as mental illness of the respondent. In the petition the appellant appeared as PW-1 and one Upadhyayula Viswanadna Sarma has appeared as PW-2. Documents Ext.P1 to P.29 were filed. The respondent was examined as RW-1, one D. Nagabhushan Rao was also examined as RW-2. Documents Ext.R1 to R3 were filed by the respondent. The Trial Court framed following points for determination:

"12. Now the points that arises for determination are:

1) Whether the petitioner established and proved that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty?

2) Whether the petitioner established and proved that the respondent has been incurable unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermediately from mental disorder?

3) Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant decree of divorce as prayed by the petitioner?

4) To what relief?"

6. The Trial Court decided both point no.1 and point no.2 against the appellant and held that appellant failed to prove that he was treated with cruelty by respondent. With regard to second point Trial Court also held that evidence adduced by the appellant was not at all sufficient to come to conclusion that the appellant has established the alleged mental disorder of respondent. Resultantly, petition was dismissed on 05.09.2011 against which the appeal has been filed in the High Court. The appeal too has been dismissed by the High Court on 05.01.2017 against which this appeal has been filed.

7. The appellant appearing in-person submitted that he has made out a case for grant of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty but the Court below erred in law in rejecting the application. He submitted that apart from various other instances, as mentioned in the application as well as in evidence, a case was set up by the appellant that false complaints have been filed by the respondent against the appellant and his family members and criminal cases have also been initiated which fully prove the cruelty on the part of the respondent. He submitted that FIR Criminal No.148/2007 in which charge-sheet No.672 of 2007 was submitted against the appellant and his sister-in- law on the basis of which charge under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was framed and the appellant was tried by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. It is submitted that the Court held the appellant not guilty of offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and he was acquitted which clearly establishes cruelty at the instance of the respondent.

8. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel, submitted that Court below had rightly rejected the petition of the appellant as he having failed to prove cruelty as well as mental illness of the respondent. Mr. Rana Mukherjee further submitted that there is a daughter born to appellant with regard to whom an order of maintenance has also been passed under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

9. We have considered the submissions of appellant-in-person as well as learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

10. The petition filed by appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and mental illness has been rejected by the Court below. With regard to second ground i.e. mental illness of the respondent, no serious efforts have been made to question the findings of the Court below which ground has rightly rejected by the Court below. The Court below has also observed that respondent is working as Sanskrit Lecturer, hence, there is no merit in the submission of the appellant that respondent is suffering from mental illness.

11. The ground which was pressed by the appellant before the Trial Court and the High Court was ground of cruelty. We need to only consider as to whether the ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has been made out or not. Before the Trial Court, the appellant has relied several incidents of cruelty allegedly meted out by the respondent towards him and his family members. In paragraph 25 of the judgment criminal case filed by the wife under Section 498A of IPC was referred to and relied. The Trial Court has noted the ground of cruelty on the basis of filing criminal case but Trial Court refused to rely on the said allegation on the ground that criminal case filed by the respondent in C.C. No.672/2007 is pending for adjudication. The Trial Court's judgment was delivered on 05.09.2011, which was questioned by the appellant before the High Court by filing an appeal no.1279/2011. During pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the judgment in C.C. No.672/2007-The State of AP through PS L.B. Nagar v. Rani Narasimha Sastry and another was decided. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section 498A of IPC. Paragraphs 32 and 34 of the judgment are as follows:

"32. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it is the considered view of this court that both the defacto-complaint/ PW1 and the accused seems as coming from respectable families from a respectable community, both are well educated, well brought up has developed hat-redness towards each other and the relationship between them is already estranged and it is in irretrievable breakage of marriage perhaps and probably due to some egoistic problems and their hat-redness went to the extent of throwing mud on each other before the courts as PW1 alleged in her complaint that the accused is trying marry one Valli the sisters daughter of the accused, and as per the suggestion given by the accused to PW1 during her cross examination the accused is alleging illicit relationship between PW1 and PW3 and egoistic problem turned into pervert-ism against each other adding bitterness further to see the bad of each other. However, though Ex.P1 complaint given by PW1 against accused as A1 and his sister as A2 Smt. A. Surya Kumari, the proceedings against A2 were already quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of AP in vide Criminal Petition No.5628/2008 dated 0712.2011 issued by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and now in the present case against A1 also the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt against A1 for the offence punishable u/s. 498A IPC.

33. xxx xxx xxx

34. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s.498A IPC and thus I acquit him u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties if any shall stands cancel after expiry of appeal time."

12. This Court has laid down that averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. This Court in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 has laid down following in paragraph 7:

"7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidious-ness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross- examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible."

13. In the present case the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498A of IPC making serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under Section 498A of IPC not only acquittal has been recorded but observations have been made that allegations of serious nature are levelled against each other. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been established. With regard to proceeding initiated by respondent under Section 498A of IPC, the High Court made following observation in paragraph 14:

14.....Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty."

14. The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498A of IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband. As per pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14.08.2005, they lived together only 18 months and thereafter they are separately living for more than a decade now.

15. In view of forgoing discussion, we conclude that appellant has made a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

16. We allow the appeal of the appellant and grant decree of divorce. The learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent has lastly submitted that appellant be directed to make payment of maintenance to the daughter who is a minor. Appellant has willingly agreed that he shall pay L 2000/- per month to the daughter as maintenance. We direct the appellant to make payment of maintenance for daughter of L 2000/- per month. Appellant shall make the payment of L 2000/- per month in the bank account of respondent with whom the minor daughter is living as on date. The payment shall start from next month i.e. December 2019. We, however, grant liberty to the minor daughter to seek enhancement of the compensation in accordance with law by filing appropriate application before the Magistrate, if so advised.

17. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Culpable Homicide and Murder under IPC 1860

Culpable Homicide / Murder under IPC

Culpable Homicide / Murder

Meaning:

the word Homicide derived from Latin words Homo and Cido. Homo means human and Cido means killing by a human.

So Homicide means the killing of a human being by a human being.

Culpable means criminal manner or punishable by law.

So in short Culpable homicide  means death through human agency punishable by law. or

So culpable homicide means killing a human being by a human being in a criminal manner

Thus, Culpable Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being in a blameworthy or criminal manner.

Chapter XVI Sections 299 to 304 of IPC DEALS WITH CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

Section 299 and Section 300 Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the definition of culpable homicide and murder respectively. Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended is provided in sec-301 and 302 of the IPC provided punishment of murder, punishment of murder of a life convict is provides in sec-303 and sec-304 provides punishment of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

EXPLANATORY NOTES ON SEC-299 AND 300 IPC

Homicide means some one is involved the death of other person.

Homicide may be either lawful or unlawful.

Lawful Homicide : In case of lawful homicide, law will set the culprit free. (sec-76-106)

Unlawful Homicide:  If death is caused with intention or knowledge to cause death, then homicide is classified as unlawful homicide.

These cases are Culpable homicide Under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code and
Murder under Section 300 of I.P.C. (sec-302,304,305,306. Etc

Culpable homicide is the Genus, and murder is the Species

SEC -299 DEFINE CULPABLE HOMICIDE IN SIMPLE WAY

culpable homicide are of two kinds:-

Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder: It is known as simple murder

Culpable homicide not amounting to Murder:

There is necessarily a criminal or knowledge in both.

The difference does not lie in quality, it lies in the quantity or degree of criminality closed by the act

Culpable homicide is the Genus, and murder is the Species. All murder are culpable homicide but not vice-versa, it has be held in Nara Singh Challan v/s Sate of Orissa 1997C.

Sec-300 defines murder. Which means murder is the species of culpable homicide.

 it is to be noted that culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not defined separately in IPC it is defined as a part of murder in sec-300 IPC  And also say circumstance when culpable homicide turn in to murder.

The main distinction between 'Culpable Homicide' and 'Murder' is that the knowledge of offender as to degree of portability of death. Thus we often say, all murders are culpable homicides, but not vice-versa. .

Whenever the court has find out whether an offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder or murder it should be followed in three steps -

1. First, a causal connection has to be established between the act of the accused and death caused

2. Once that is proved, the next step is finding out whether the act of the accused is culpable homicide as defined u/s 299 IPC.

3. If answer is affirmative then the court has to be find whether the case come within the ambit any of the four clauses of sec-300. If the answer is negative the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. But if the answer is positive then it is murder And also if the answer is positive but fall within any of the exception u/s-300 then also it will culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE ON THE BASIS OF DEFINATIONS

COMMON ELEMENT:- When an Act/omission (Actus reous) resulting the death of another human being it would be culpable homicide if any of the mensrea are their

Culpable Homicide (Sec-299)

When Culpable Homicide is murder (sec-300)

When culpable homicide is not murder (5-exception of sec-300)

Intention to cause death

Provocation

Right of private defence

public servant exceeding his power

sudden fight

with consent

Intention to cause death (no extra element necessary)

Intention of such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

+ (2) knowledge of the offender

+(3)sufficient in ordinary course of nature

With knowledge of possibility of death

+(4) surety of knowledge of death

Correspondence between the three clauses of 299 with four clauses of sec-300

Clause (a) of sec 299 corresponds with clause 1 of sec 300 (both required intention to cause deaths)

Clause (a) of sec 299 corresponds with clause 2 & 3 of sec 300 (both required intention to bodily injury

Degree of probability of deaths 

The word likely in conveys Clause (b) of Sec-299 conveys the sense of probability as distinguished from mere possibility. The word bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death mean will be most probable result injury having regard to ordinary course of nature.

Clause (c) of Sec 299 correspondence with clause (4 ) of sec 300 both resulting knowledge of the probability of act causing death

N.B: There are five exception to sec 300 each of which takes away a case from the offence of murder and make it a case of culpable homicide.

ESSENTIAL INGRIEDIENTS OF SEC-299

Cause of a death of a human being

Such death must have been caused by doing an act

With an intention to causing death

With an intention to causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

With knowledge that the doer is likely by such act to cause death.

Illustrations:

A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of there by 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.

A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of Culpable Homicide.

Murder (When Culpable Homicide amounts to Murder)

In the scheme of penal code culpable homicide is genus and murder is its species

All murder is culpable homicide but not vice versa.

Speaking generally culpable homicide sans special characters of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Murder is a type of Culpable Homicide where culpability of the accused is quite more than in a mere Culpable Homicide. Section 300, says that Culpable Homicide is Murder if the act by which the death is caused is done  

with the intention of causing death

or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person,

or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

It is also Murder if the person committing the act knows that the act is so dangerous that it will cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death in all probability and he has no valid reason for doing that act.

Illustrations:

A shoots Z with an intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits Murder.

A intentionally gives Z a sword cut that sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Z dies because of the cut. A commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill Z.

A without any excuse fires a loaded canon on a crowd. One person dies because of it. A commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill that person.

Situations where Culpable Homicide does not amount to Murder:

Section 300 also specifies certain situations when the Murder is considered as Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. These are -  

If the offender does an act that causes death because of grave and sudden provocation by the other.

If the offender causes death while exceeding the right to private defense in good faith.

If the offender is a public servant and does an act that he, in good faith, believes to be lawful.

If the act happens in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.

If the deceased is above 18 and the death is caused by his own consent.

Exception 1 to 5 of Sec-300 of IPC defines conditions when culpable Homicide is not amounting to murder:

Provocation.

Right of private defense.

Public servant exceeding his power.

Sudden fight.

Consent.

Essential ingredients of Exception-1:

The deceased must have given provocation to the accused

The provocation must be grave

The provocation must be sudden

The offender by reason of said provocation shall have been deprivation of his power of self control.

The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or that of another person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisions:-

The provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

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.

 The provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.

lustrations 

A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills, Y, Z's child. This is Murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.

Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed Murder, but merely Culpable Homicide.

Provocation must be grave: upheld in Venkatesan v/s State of Tamil Nadu (1997)

The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable men belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to loss his self control.

In India words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation.

The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence.

Illustrations:

Y gives a grave and sudden provocation to A. A on this provocation fires a pistol at Y neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not amounting to murder, but merely culpable homicide.

Exceptions 2. Culpable homicide is not amounting to murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defense 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 defense without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defense.

Illustration:

Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped shoots z dead. A has not committed murder but only culpable homicide.

Exceptions 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 caused death by doing an act which he , in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of this duty as such public servant and without ill will towards the person whose deaths is caused.

Exceptions 4. Culpable homicide is not amounting to 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.

Explanation. it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

Exceptions 5. culpable homicide is not amounting to murder when the murder whose death is caused, being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or take the risk of death with his own consent.

Scope: In Raghunath v/s State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 165, Sc held that –

It is no well settled principle of law that if two views are possible, one in favor of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favoring the accused must be accepted.

Culpable homicide amounting to murder

Section 300 also defines the circumstance when culpable homicide turn into murder which is punishes u/s 302. Under following 4 circumstances:

Intention to causing death-

Culpable homicide turn into murder if the act by which the deaths is caused is done with the Intention of Causing death or

If an act 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

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

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 deaths or such injury as aforesaid.

Illustration

A, knows that Z is suffering such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strike him with the intention of causing bodily injuries. 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.

But if A, knowing that Z is laboring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.

A without any excuse fires loaded cannon into a crowd of person and kills one of them. A is guild of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.

In State of Rajashtan v/s Dhool Singh AIR 2004 SC 1264. SC held that - Culpable homicide becomes murder if the attacker cause an injury which he knows is likely to cause death and, of course, consequent to such injury the victim should die.

Conclusion-

The main element which is distinguish between murder and culpable homicide is Intention or in presence of a special mens rea. If death is the most likely result of an act, it will be murder.  If death is the likely result of an act, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Leading case laws

Reg. V/s. Govinda 1876 (Bom): In this case the accused kicked his wife who was 15 years old and gave her a few blow on the body with the result she fell down on the ground. Then he put one knee on her chest and struck her a few more blow resulting in her death. The lower court convicted him of murder. There were different opinions amongst the two judges of the High Court and consequently the matter was referred to a third Judge, Justice Melvil, who held the accused guilty under clause (2) of sec.299 for culpable homicide and sentenced him u/s 304 part I on the grounds that the death was caused with the intention on the part of the accused to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death

Sarabjeet Singh V/s St ate 1994. The accused did not have good relation with complainant on account of sale transaction of piece of land. He went to the house and assaulted the complainant and his wife. He also picked up the infant child of the complainant and threw him down on the ground with force as a result of which the child died some time later. The accused was held guilty under sec. 304 Part-II.

NANABATI VS STATE OF MAHARASTRA

After the confess of the wife of Nanabati about the illicit intimacy with Ahuja, Nanabati went directly to the residence of Ahuja with loaded revolver enter his bed room and shoot him.

The court held that it is murder. The act is not attract of provision of five exception of Sec-300

Ajit Singh v/s State l991: In this case the accused found his wife and a neighbours in a compromising position and shot both of them dead. It was held that he was acting under provocation and is liable for sudden provocation.

THREE TYPES OF PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE

For the purpose of fixing of punishment, the code practically recognised three degree of culpable homicide

The first is what may be called culpable homicide of the first degree . this is greatest form of culpable homicide which is defined in sec-300 IPC

The second may be termed as culpable homicide of second degree. This  is punishment under the first part of sec -304

Than there is culpable homicide of third degree .this is lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also lowest among the punishment provided for these three grades. Culpable homicide of the degree is punishable under the second part of sec-304

The aforesaid distinction between an act amounting to murder and an act not amounting to murder  has been brought out in numerous decision

Lets Differentiate between Murder and culpable homicide in a very simplistic way-

The basic difference between both are as follows-

Culpable homicide is 'genus', whereas Murder is 'its specie'

All Murder are Culpable Homicide, but Not Vice versa.

A person commits Culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused, whereas, subjected to certain exceptions Culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is done. It means, culpable homicide will be murder when subjected to exceptions provided.

Murder, a person has a positive intention of killing someone, whereas in Culpable homicide, the intention are generally not clear. It may be positive or negative.

Degree of Probabilities of death is higher in Murder, comparable to Culpable Homicide.

Section 299 sub clause (b) does not postulate any KNOWLEDGE on the part of offender, but Clause(b)of Section 300 does.

Lastly, it is 'degree of probability 'which determines whether culpable homicide is Gravest, medium or lowest Degree.