Culpable Homicide

Introduction To Cupable Homicide

Homicide is the act of one human killing another. A homicide requires just a volitional act by someone else that results in death, and along these lines, a homicide may result from accidental, negligent, or careless acts regardless of whether there is an intent to cause hurt. Culpable Homicide is the killing of one individual by another with the intention of causing death.

In India, Culpable Homicide is mentioned in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 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 offense of culpable homicide.”

Components of Culpable Homicide

• Actus Reus (Act)
• Mens Rea (Intention)

Essentials of Culpable Homicide

1) Causing the death of an individual.

2) Such death must be caused by an act

i. With the intention of causing death; or
ii. With the intention of making such bodily injury as is likely reason death; or
iii. With the information that the doer is likely by such an act to cause death.

The fact that the death of an individual is caused isn’t sufficient. Except if one of the mental states referenced in the element is available, an act of causing death can’t add up to Culpable Homicide.

Types Of Culpable Homicide

I. Culpable homicide amounting to murder.

II. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Culpable homicide is the Genus, and murder is the Species. All murder is culpable homicide yet not the other way around, it has been held in Nara Singh Challan v/s State of Orrisa (1997). Section 299 can’t be taken to be meaning of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Culpable homicide is the genus. Section 300 characterizes murder which implies murder is the species of culpable homicide. It is to be noted here that culpable homicide not amounting to murder isn’t characterized independently in IPC, it is characterized as a part of Murder in section 300 of IPC.

Section 300 – 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

Culpable Homicide isn’t adding up to murder:

Special case 1 to 5 of s300 of IPC characterizes conditions when culpable Homicide isn’t amounting to murder:

I. Provocation
II. Right of private defense
III. Public servant surpassing his power.
IV. Sudden fight
V. Consent

Special case 1-culpable homicide isn’t adding up to murder if the guilty party, while deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, caused the death of the individual who gave the provocation or causes the death of any individual by accident or mistake.

The above exemption is liable to these provisions:-

1. The provocation isn’t looked for or intentionally provoked by the guilty party as a reason for killing or harming any individual.
2. The provocation isn’t given by anything done in compliance with the law, or by a public servant in the legal exercise of the powers of such a public servant.
3. The provocation isn’t given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.

The provocation must be grave: maintained in Venkatesan v/s State of Tamil Nadu (1997)

The trial of the grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man having a place with the same class of society as the accused, set in the circumstance in which the accused was set would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.
In India, words and gestures may likewise, in specific situations, cause grave and sudden provocation
The mental background made by the last act of the victim might be taken into consideration in deciding whether the consequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offense.

Section 300 likewise characterizes the situation when culpable homicide turns into the murder which is punished under Section 302. Under the following 4 conditions:

The intention of causing death-

I. Culpable homicide turns into murder if the act by which the deaths is caused is done with the Intention of Causing death or
II. In an act done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to probably make the death of the individual whom the harm is caused, or
III. In the done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any individual and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is adequate in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
IV. On the off chance that the individual committing the act realizes that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, most likely, cause death or such bodily injury as is probably going to cause death, and commits such act with no reason for acquiring the danger of causing deaths or such injury as previously mentioned.

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder will be punishable with
(i) imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either up to ten years, and will likewise be subject to fine if the act by which the death is caused is with the intention of causing death, or of such bodily injury as is probably going to cause death; or
(ii) with imprisonment of either depiction up to ten years or fine or both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is probably going to cause death, however with no intention to cause death or to make such bodily injury as is likely reason death.

The field of Culpable Homicide is tremendous and is of practical utility. It incorporates all felonious homicide not amounting to murder. It is fundamentally a killing which the killer neither intended nor anticipated as likely to occur; it is an unintentional, accidental felonious killing. There have been numerous cases in which this field of law has been utilized and correctly applied too. The Sections 299, 301, 304, 304A deal with the diverse angles covered under this subject in an elaborate way every one of the provisions are not exhaustive and there is a need to put into application a considerable lot of the recommendation of the Law Commission for better organization of Justice since it would help in the evolvement of this subject with time.

Section 304 a – Death by Negligence : Law and Legality

Indian Penal Code: Section 304A

India’s criminal system follows the Indian Penal Code in matters of dealing with crime. The framework of IPC governs crime with justice and punishment. Owing to the influence of English Law, the original Indian Penal Code had provisions for culpable homicide under Section 299. Section 299 deals with any act or bodily injury caused by any person with an intention of causing death. Section 304 of IPC deals with the provision of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This section involves crimes perpetrated with the knowledge of causing death but without any intention of doing the same.

The original Penal Code did not have any provision for dealing with death caused by negligence.  In 1870,  Act 27 of the Indian Penal Code added Section 304 a and b as an amendment. The following article is going to discuss Section 304 (a) under IPC in detail.

Section 304(a) states as follows:

“Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or both.”

Any act under Section 304(a) is a bailable offence under the IPC. In such a case, the Court allows the defendant to make bail by paying a surety amount along with a bail bond at the police station. This offence is also compoundable which means that the plaintiff and the defendant can reach an agreement between themselves through their counsel and avoid trial. This often occurs in cases involving powerful Companies who would settle instead of going through a public trial.

Negligent Homicide: The Parameters of Law

The law sets parameters but also keeps spaces open for interpretation because each case has a different context.  Section 304(a) uses the words “rash or negligent act” as the deciding elements to charge any person under this section Therefore it is important to understand these terms and its various connotations.

Firstly, the Act being mentioned above should be causa causans,i.e, the primary cause of death and not merely causa sine qua non,i.e, an indirect act. Therefore, the relationship between the act and the death or injury resulted by it should be direct for the plaintiff to win the case.

Secondly,  there is a difference in the responsibility of the defendant vis-i vis the plaintiff between a negligent act and a rash act. A negligent act is a breach of duty that causes harm/damage to another person unintentionally. On the contrary, a rash act is the culmination of overhasty decisions and recklessness on the part of the defendant.

Thirdly,  a rash act is generally a criminal act. A negligent act could be civil or criminal depending on the gravity and the nature of the crime along with the degree of intention or lack thereof in a particular case.

Types of Negligence

There could be many ways of partaking in criminal negligence. There are two major criteria that come to the forefront while discussing Criminal Negligence:

Medical Negligence

Medical negligence is a breach of duty on the part of the defendant who has a legal as well as a moral duty to look after his/her patient. The act of “Negligence” is open to interpretation based on the actions of the defendant in each case. A medical practitioner is liable for negligence if he/she deviates from “the standard treatment” recommended for taking care of his/her patient causing death or injury of the patient. A medical practitioner can be a doctor as well as a nurse. Medical negligence cases can be civil as well if the hospital as a whole is held accountable for malpractice. For instance, using faulty equipment or expired medicines in the hospital.

Motor Vehicle Accidents

The incident of a motor vehicle crash leading to the death of people will not be enough to charge someone under Section 304(a) for negligent driving. The charge of criminally negligent driving requires the driver to be solely or entirely responsible for the accident because of their negligence or rashness. This, however, requires interpretation on part of the court; taking into account the level of rashness and deliberation in an action that led to an accident. The court has to take into account that if one decides to drive under influence, they are aware of the consequences of their decision. The court also has to take into account the degree of damage done by undertaking that reckless decision.

Corporate Negligence

In matters of corporate negligence, a Company is liable under Section 304(a) if it takes any action that injures their consumers, creates an unsafe environment for their employees or cheats their shareholders.  Some of the crimes that come under corporate negligence cases are:

• air and water pollution caused by industries;
• adulteration of food by food companies;
• involving themselves in different lobbies for their own profit by exchanging money with political parties;
• releasing confidential information without permission;
• recording personal conversations and breaching privacy;
• harming or cheating the shareholders’ out of their profit.

The burden of Proof and Defense against Section 304(a)

In claims of negligence, it is extremely important to prove that there was indeed a breach of duty. In many cases of medical negligence, the professional might make a decision based on the complicated nature of the case presented to him/her. The burden of proof lies with the doctor to prove that they behaved in a reasonable way only in the interest of the patient.

The other arguments on which the defendant relies are as follows:

• contributory negligence: proving there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff;
• inevitable accident: proving that the death or injury caused was inevitable depending on the circumstances of the action;
• dangerous recreational activity: proving that the plaintiff’s injury is a result of partaking in a dangerous recreational activity like drugs. In such a case, the defendant will not be liable for any damages.
• illegal activity– proving that both the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in an illegal business when the plaintiff was injured. This renders the case void.

In civil negligence cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove that there was a breach of duty by the Company/Corporate. The breach of duty has to directly damage the plaintiff. In the case of powerful Companies, the plaintiffs should be ready to show concrete proof, including reliable testimonies and documents to reach a favourable verdict.

Section 304a IPC: Judgements

Some of the landmark judgements in cases related to Section 304(a) IPC:

 Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab [ANR 2005]

The plaintiffs, in this case, were the family of Jivan Lal who was admitted and died in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. The two doctors who attended the deceased were Jacob Matthew and Allen Joseph. The doctors had to face the charge of criminal negligence. The plaintiffs claimed negligence on the doctor’s part while procuring oxygen cylinder for their father. The defence argued that the patient was at the last stage of cancer. He was not supposed to be admitted to any hospital in lieu of his degrading health.

The Supreme Court argued in favour of the doctors stating that the plaintiff must prove that the medical professionals acted “in disregard of the life and safety of the patient.” A medical professional cannot be held liable if they are following the accepted procedure of medical practice. They cannot be reprimanded for not using an alternative method that might or might not have brought the desired result. They can only be charged in either of the two conditions

• if they do not possess the skill to match their profession.
• if they did not show reasonable competence while discharging their duty; the standard set here would be of an ordinary competent person.

Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi vs State of Gujarat [1988]

The Session Judge convicted the accused of the death of a 10-year-old girl. He was charged under section 304 (a) of IPC for the negligent driving of a motor bus. The defence claimed that the girl entered the road out of nowhere. There was insufficient evidence of the girl coming out of nowhere and also the fact that the driver was driving on the wrong side. Therefore, the sessions court sentenced the accused with two years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) along with 500 rupees fine. The Supreme court did allow probation after regarding the context of the case.

Conclusion

The provision of Section 304(a) under the IPC is important to offer a measure of justice to the claimants. It might give them some closure or at the very least compensate them if there has been a breach of duty that led to irreversible damage or loss of life/property.

304A IPC BAILABLE304A IPC JUDGMENTS304A IPC PUNISHMENT

Never Underestimate The Influence Of Criminal Provision Of Defamation – Section 499 And 500 Of IPC

Defamation is an oral or written statement that injures someone’s reputation. Section 499 and Section 500 of IPC deals with the defamation as an offense. It is considered as the statement of fact, which is unprivileged and not true, that must harm someone’s reputation, either by spoken or written, and the same must be published before the third party. The term Defamation covers mainly the false allegation or communication, which tarnished the reputation or decreased the respect that they hold in the society at large. Written defamation is known as “libel,” which is also considered as the permanent form of the defamation,  while spoken defamation is known as “slander.” Both forms of defamation, i.e., libel and slander, derive its origins from English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence.

Every person has a right to have his reputation preserved free from the violation. This right of reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of each and every person as part of the right of personal security under article 21 of the Constitution of India and also considered as one of the most important natural rights. An affection towards reputation inspires people to do great things, acquire fame and name, which is the mainspring of life in every walk of life. The main objective of the provision of the defamation is to protect one’s reputation, honor, and integrity in society.

Defamation in India at present

In India, defamation can be seen as both Civil as well as criminal offenses. The Sufferer or the person who got defamed is offered a legal remedy in both civil as well as criminal. In civil law, the remedy is covered under the Law of Torts where sufferer or victim may go to High Court or any subordinate courts for compensation or damages in monetary form and c, Section 499 provides the definition of “Defamation” and  legal remedy which is the punishment of simple imprisonment which may exceed up to 2 years or Fine or Both, defined under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862.

Section 499 of the IPC defined as

A person or anyone, by his words either spoken or  which shown as a clear intention to be read, or by signature or by any kind of representations which is visible, makes or publishes any charges or allegation which refers any person, intending to harm, or  have knowledge or having a reason to make believe that these kinds of allegation will harm, the reputation or dignity of such person, is to be understood by, except in the case hereinafter expected to defame that person.

The section further goes on to provide some other vital explanation to determine what would create or constitute defamation. Defamation under the IPC may constitute an imputation of a deceased person that would harm the reputation of that person if he is alive and showing clear intention which may be hurtful to the feelings and emotions of their family or any other relatives. It may also amount to defamation to make an imputation refers to an association or company or any collection of persons as such.

The Section however also state that no imputation is said to injures a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the respected character or moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of their caste or of their calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a disgusting state, or a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Section 499 of the IPC also explain some exceptions. These include “imputation of truth” which is essentially required for the “welfare of the public” and thus has to be published, on conduct of government officials which involves public duty, the act of any person touching any public question and merits of the public performance, if someone publishes reports of proceedings of Courts, merits of the case decided in Court of law or act and conduct of witnesses and others concerned with, etc.

Defamation under section 499 and Section 500 IPC vs. Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a): –

The law of the defamation is not punishable in many countries or as we can understand by the way that defamation laws are not criminal laws in some countries of the world, for that the same reason a renowned lawyer-politician Mr. Subramanian Swamy along with several other petitioners (Rahul Gandhi, Mr. Kejriwal, etc.) came together to challenge the constitutionality of criminal defamation, i.e., (Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC) before the apex court i.e., Supreme Court.

 a)- Reason behind the Criminal Provision of Defamation (u/s 499/500) was challenged: –

The basic reason was that it was an unreasonable restriction on the constitutionally-guaranteed Right, i.e., Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code gives us the Right to sue for Defamation if  the person’s reputation was damaged or intended to damage by any other, and the petitioner challenged this on the ground that this was prima facie infringement of Freedom of Speech and Expression provided by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a).

 b)- Some of the arguments that why this criminal provision of defamation(u/s 499/500) must declare unconstitutionally: –

Firstly, Criminal provision of the defamation (u/s 499/500) do not constitute a “reasonable restriction” on speech, and even truth is not an exact defense because the defense only works when the statement is for the public good, which is a question of fact by the court. This could be arbitrary because Instead of making the plaintiff prove that the accused made a false statement, section 499 gives the accused the burden of proving that the statement was not only true but also for the welfare of the public at large.

Secondly, mere on the allegation, a magistrate may issue criminal process that the accused conspired with the person who actually made the allegedly defamatory written statements, also  a criminal suit u/s 499 can be filed even for speech given by the political leaders, which is considered as the most protected speech to sustain democracy.

Lastly, there is also an argument that it is not clear even why the criminal provision of defamation has existed because petitioners are in the opinion that civil remedy is more than sufficient for that.

 c)- Court Held: –

However,  the apex court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation (u/s 499/500) and its constitutional validity. The judgment delivered on May 13, 2016, by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India (“Judgement“) was delivered by Justice Dipak Misra, with Justice Prafulla C. Pant. The Judgment in the case started by analyzing the meaning of the terms ‘defamation’ and ‘reputation’, and their interaction of these terms with the right of the freedom of speech and expression mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The reputation of an individual must be secured as it was included in the protection of ‘dignity’, which is a very important aspect of the constitutionally protected right to life under article 21 of COI. Also, Defamation, in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article (19)(1)(a)  is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Judgement also recognizes principles of reasonable restriction are that the restrictions which should serve the interest of public and should not be excessive; and held that reputation of an individual is a basic element enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity.

In addition, the court also emphasize for upholding the validity of the criminal defamation is online defamation, in the age of the Internet it can be effectively countered only by making it a criminal offense, and this particular law is concerning part of the state’s “compelling interest” to protect the dignity and reputation of citizens.

Finally, the Supreme Court holds that this criminal provision of defamation is not disproportionate. The reasonableness and its proportionality of a restriction are examined from the standpoint of the interest of the general public, and not from the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed. Applying this, the Court adjudged that criminal defamation law (u/s 499/500) to be proportionate. Further, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition which challenges the constitutionality of the criminal provision of defamation, holding that it was a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

 A person is bound to allow the existence of something that one may dislike or disagrees within other words -criticism, dissent, and discordance, but not expected to tolerate a rush which may tarnish the reputation of that person. (SC in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India [AIR 2016 SC 2728]  ).

Original blog is published at LEGODESK  please read the blog for more content and for legal help and service.

Legodesk is a legal practice management tool using which lawyers can manage their matters, win new clients and do their legal research all in one platform. Legodesk’s unique case management features helps to keep your legal practice organized and accessible everywhere.