Please Explain the Difference Between Section 299 And Section 300

421 votes

There is only a thin line of difference between Section 299 i.e. culpable homicide and Section 300 i.e. murder. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not all 'culpable homicide' is 'murder'. 'Culpable homicide' is like the genus where 'murder' is its specie. Murder is only an intensified form of culpable homicide.

The main difference only lies in the intention behind the act done by the accused. If a person is killed due to sudden rage, or on being instigated or provoked, in a sudden fight, without any pre-planning, then, such accused will be charged under culpable homicide, however, if such death takes place in cold-blood or with proper planning to cause death of such person, then the accused would be guilty of committing  murder.

After laying down the cases in which culpable homicide amounts to murder, certain exceptional situations are laid down in Section 300 of the IPC under which, if murder is committed, it is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is then punishable under Section 304 of the IPC being punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead of Section 302 of the IPC which relates to punishment for murder.

The exceptions are given in order to protect the accused under certain circumstances.  They are as follows:
 

I. Grave and sudden provocation

‘Culpable homicide’ cannot be seen as ‘murder’ in a case where a person’s death is caused by the offender due to grave and sudden provocation, who is deprived of the power of self-control, where such provocation is caused by the person whose death is caused or even when in such a case the death of any other person is caused by mistake or by accident. Though, this exception is subject to the following provisos:

i.  The provocation should not be sought or pro­voked voluntarily by the offender as an excuse for killing or causing harm to any person.

ii. The provocation should not be given by anything done in obedience to law, or by a public servant during his lawful exer­cise of the powers of such public servant.

iii. The provocation should not be given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. (Explanation- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact).

Illustrations:

- X having been provocated by Y, under such influence of passion, killed Z intentionally, who was Y’s daughter. This act of killing will be termed as murder as the provocation was not done by the daughter and also because the death of the daughter was not caused by mistake or by accident while doing an act caused by such provocation.

- A was given grave and sudden provocation by B, upon which A fired a pistol at B. Neither did A intend nor did she herself know to be likely to kill C, who was near her, but completely out of sight, A killed C. In such a case, A will be liable for the act of culpable homicide, but not murder, since the death of C was caused by mistake or by accident.
 

II.  Private defence

While exercising the right of private defence of property or person, in good faith, when a person exceeds this power that is given to him, due to which the person against whom such right of private defence was being exercised, dies, without any intention or any knowledge of doing anything more than what was necessary for that purpose, the accused cannot be liable for the act of murder. Though, if the right of private defence is exceeded intentionally, then the accused will be liable for murder, but if it is exceeded unintentionally, then it will amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Illustration: 

- A attempted to whip B, but not in a manner to cause grievous hurt to B. Seeing this, B drew out a pistol while A persisted the assault. It was believed by B that she had no other way to prevent herself from being whipped by A and so B fired at A. A died and B was liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder as her right of private defence was exceeded unintentionally in good faith.
 

III. Exercise of legal power by public servant

If the accused, being a public servant or aiding a public servant who acts for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers conferred upon him by law and death is caused by doing an act, which is believed by him in good faith, to be lawful and necessary for duly discharging his duties as a public servant and without any ill-will towards the person whose death was caused, will be liable for culpable homicide and not murder.

Illustration:

- If a police officer follows a person for his arrest, but the person tries to pelt stones at such police officer and tries to run away and during that incident, if the police officer shoots the person to be arrested, such police officer will not be held liable for murder. 
 

IV. Sudden fight

If death of a person is caused in a sudden fight without premeditation, entirely in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without any undue advantage having been taken by the accused or without having even acted in an unusual or a cruel manner, the accused will only be held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Explanation- In such cases it is immaterial which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.). 

Illustration:

- A was extremely angry when she learnt that her kitten had come to B’s house. A started abusing B, when the latter tried to stop her, A fired at B, who was unarmed at that time. Thus, A had intention to kill B and A was held liable for committing murder.
 

V. Consent

When the person whose death is caused, who is above the age of 18 years, takes the risk of deaths or suffers deaths with his own consent, then such act is termed as culpable homicide and not murder.
 

Illustration: 

- Y was abetted by Z to commit suicide. Here, Y was under 18 years of age being only 15 years old. Y, who eventually committed suicide, was found incapable of giving her consent as she was not mature and below eighteen years of age. Z was held liable for the act of committing murder.
 

Punishment for murder and punishment for culpable homicide:

Punishment for an act of murder (Section 300) is provided under Section 302 of the IPC where the accused can be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Punishment for an act of culpable homicide (Section 299) is provided under Section 304 of the IPC where the accused can be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for either description of a term extending up to 10 years and/or fine.

Whether the act committed by the accused is a murder, or a culpable homicide, is a question of fact. The intention of the accused and his action, as per the facts of the case, will eventually decide whether it is murder or culpable homicide.

If you would want to add a charge of Section 307 of the IPC, then you would have to go for further investigation based upon the new evidence in the picture. Section 307 of the IPC relates to attempt to murder, while Section 308 is for attempt to commit culpable homicide. All the facts of your case, the witnesses, the evidence etc. will have to be gone through in detail for proceeding in the proper direction before the courts.

LawRato LawRato

756 votes

Hello Sir I have gone through your query. In these circumstances if you want to add a charge then you need to go for further investigation on the basis of new evidence in the picture.

For further information feel free to contact me.

Advocate Love Kumar Soni LawRato

353 votes

Section 299 IPC - Culpable Homicide: Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide. It states that culpable homicide is committed when:

1. The act causing death is done with the intention of causing death, or
2. The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death, or
3. The act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or any bodily injury that is likely to cause death.

In simpler terms, culpable homicide covers situations where a person causes death either intentionally, with the knowledge that death is likely, or by causing injuries that they know are likely to result in death, even if they didn't specifically intend to cause death.
Section 300 IPC - Murder: Section 300 of the IPC defines the offense of murder. It lays down circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder. Murder is said to be committed when:

1. The act causing death is done with the intention of causing death, or
2. The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death, or
3. The act is done with the knowledge 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 the offender does it without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

In essence, murder is a subset of culpable homicide. It includes situations where the act causing death is done intentionally or with the knowledge that it is highly likely to cause death, and there's no valid excuse for taking such a risk.
The key difference between Section 299 and Section 300 lies in the degree of intention and knowledge regarding the likelihood of causing death. Section 300 is more specific and covers more serious cases where the offender's intent or knowledge is such that it is highly likely to result in death.

Advocate Chikirsha Mohanty LawRato

163 votes

In summary, the difference between culpable murder under section 299 of the IPC and murder under Section 300 is largely determined by whether or not there was an intent to kill, as well the specific aggravating circumstances which elevate the crime to murder.

Advocate Chikirsha Mohanty LawRato