“Murder and Culpable Homicide are like two concentric circles; Murder is the narrower, darker inner circle of certainty, while Culpable Homicide is the wider circle of probability.” – Sir James Fitzjames Stephen
In the interwoven thread of Indian criminal laws, few concepts are debatable and that creates an adrenaline in understanding these concepts in depth. Most of the time the concepts are litigated, or misunderstood as the line between Murder and Culpable Homicide. Often described by legal scholars as the difference between “shades of grey,” these two offences represent the varying degrees of accountability for taking a human life. Some of the top law colleges teach these concepts to students by including criminal law in the course curriculum.
In India, which previously followed the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and now follows the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the rationale behind the punishment was that it should be proportional to the perpetrators’ mens rea and the corresponding probability of death being caused by their act.
The distinction between the two terms is brought out by the following observations found in the leading case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya decided by the Supreme Court.
“Culpable homicide is the genus and murder is the species. All murders are culpable homicide, but all culpable homicides are not murder.”
- Section 100 like previously Section 299 IPC defines Culpable Homicide.
* Section 101 defines murder. This section was formerly Section 300 IPC.
A ‘homicide’ is ‘killing a human being’. ‘Culpable Homicide’ is basically an ‘unlawful’ homicide. And ‘Murder’ aggravates, deliberates, and ascertains past ‘culpable homicide’.
A person commits culpable homicide through an act if they kill by it that:
- The intention of causing death.
- The intention of causing such bodily injury is likely to cause death.
- Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
By “likely” is meant something less than the usually applied standard for murder, i.e. it does not have to be certain.
Think of culpable homicide as the broader category—like a serious crime involving death—but murder kicks it up a notch when the act is even more ruthless or certain to kill. The line between them often comes down to how locked-in the killer’s mindset is or how fragile the victim happens to be.
Murder rests on four key pillars:
- Direct intention: The person clearly means to kill—like planning and executing a fatal stab.
- Knowing the victim’s weakness: If you know someone has a bad heart (say, a weak spleen) and you punch them right there, it’s murder—even if a tough guy would’ve walked away fine.
- Injury that’s deadly in the normal run of things: Picture a deep slash across the throat; that’s bad enough to kill most people without any surprises.
- Insanely risky act: Loading a cannon and firing it into a packed market? Death is basically guaranteed.
The Big Difference: Likelihood vs. Near-Certainty
The smartest way to tell culpable homicide from murder? Look at the killer’s headspace about what would happen. It’s all about probability—death as a “maybe” versus a “definitely.”
To spot the difference between culpable homicide and murder, focus on the killer’s mindset about death’s odds. With probability, culpable homicide means death is likely but not a sure bet, while murder makes it the most probable or certain outcome. On purpose, culpable homicide involves wanting to hurt someone badly enough that it might kill, but murder targets an injury that’s enough to kill in normal cases. For bodily injury, it’s “likely to cause death” in culpable homicide, versus “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death” for murder. Finally, the degree of blame is serious but not the worst for culpable homicide, whereas murder hits top-level culpability—pure evil intent.
Real-life examples to nail it down:
Scenario A (Culpable Homicide): A and B get into a heated street fight. A swings a stick at B’s head—knowing it’s a vital spot where death could happen. Likely? Yes. Certain? No.
Scenario B (Murder): A grabs a sharp axe, winds up, and chops at B’s head with full power. In the normal course of things, that’s game over—death is the probable result.
When Murder Gets “Downgraded”: The Five Lifesavers
Even if someone’s act screams “murder” on paper, Indian law has five exceptions that knock it down to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. These are like mercy rules for when emotions run hot, self-defence goes too far, or duty calls—recognising we’re all human and mess up under pressure.
- Exception 1: Grave and Sudden Provocation
Picture this: Someone flies into a blind rage from a massive, unexpected insult or betrayal, loses control, and kills the provoker right then. No time to cool off.
Classic case: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra—Nanavati shot his wife’s lover in a jealous fury, but courts said if there’s any “cooling off” period (like grabbing a gun later), tough luck, no exception.
- Exception 2: Right of Private Defence
You’re defending yourself or your stuff in good faith, but you go overboard—killing without planning it ahead. Think of a home invasion where you swing too hard.
- Exception 3: Public Servant’s Duty
A cop or official genuinely believes they have to act (even bending rules a bit) to serve justice, like quelling a riot. Good faith is key—no malice.
- Exception 4: Sudden Fight
In the heat of a spontaneous brawl—no plotting, no cruelty, no unfair edge taken—you end up causing death. It’s like two guys squaring off in a bar over a spilled drink, things escalate fast.
- Exception 5: Consent
The victim is over 18 and knowingly signs up for the risk—like a twisted suicide pact where one person survives. (Rare, but real.)
What’s at Stake? Punishments under the BNS
When the law moves from the old code to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the names change, but the gravity of the consequences remains. The legal system uses sentencing to reflect the “moral wrongness” of the act:
- Murder (Section 103 BNS): This is the highest level of culpability. Because the act is seen as a direct defiance of the sanctity of life, it carries the heaviest weight: Life Imprisonment or the Death Penalty, plus a fine.
- Culpable Homicide (Section 105 BNS): Here, the law acknowledges shades of gray.
If you intended to cause harm that resulted in death, you face Life Imprisonment or up to 10 years in prison.
If you didn’t mean for it to happen but knew your actions were dangerous, the law scales the punishment back to up to 10 years plus a fine.
The Stories That Shaped the Law
To truly understand how a judge decides between these two paths, we look at three landmark stories that defined Indian legal history:
Reg. v. Govinda (1876): The Fine Line of Probability In a heated moment, a man kicked and struck his wife, leading to her tragic death. The court had to decide: was this murder? They ruled it was Culpable Homicide. Why? Because while his actions were “likely” to cause death, they weren’t “sufficiently certain” to do so. This case taught us that the difference often lies in the mathematical probability of death.
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958): The “Objective” Test This case changed everything. The court ruled that if you intentionally inflict a specific wound, and that wound is medically “enough” to kill someone in the ordinary course of nature, you are guilty of Murder. It doesn’t matter if you “didn’t mean to kill them”—it only matters that you meant to cause that specific, fatal injury.
State of AP v. R. Punnayya (1976): The Family Tree This judgment gave us the clearest mental map we have today. It explained that Culpable Homicide is the “Genus” (the broad category) and Murder is the “Species” (the specific, more extreme version). Every murder is a culpable homicide, but not every homicide reaches the level of murder.
Conclusion
The distinction between Murder and Culpable Homicide isn’t just a classroom debate; it is a decision that dictates the rest of a human being’s life. It is the difference between a decade in prison and never coming home. Pursuing an LLM in Criminal Law can help you cement your future as a criminal law attorney in the Indian legal system.
At its core, the law is trying to do something incredibly difficult: peer into the human mind. It asks whether a tragic death was the result of a “likely” accident, an “intentional” injury, or a “fatal certainty.” By understanding these nuances, we see the justice system’s true goal—balancing the heavy loss of a life with the complicated reality of human intent.