CRIMINAL LAW - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER

Culpable Homicide is not amounting to murder:

Exception 1 to 5 of s300 of IPC defines conditions when culpable Homicide is not amounting to murder:

I. Provocation.

II. Right of private defense.

III. Public servant exceeding his power.

IV. Sudden fight.

V. Consent.

Exception-1-culpable homicide is not amounting to murder if the offender, whilst deprive of self control by grave and sudden provocation, caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisions:-

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

2. 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.

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

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

1. 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.

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

3. 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:

1. 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.

2. A attempts to pull Z's nose, in the exercise of private defense, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passing in consequence kills Z. this is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thin done in exercise of the right of private defense.

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.