This article is written by Shefali Chitkara. This article gives a detailed meaning and analysis of the topic “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, its essential ingredients, and differences with other related topics, with a focus on the examples, illustrations, landmark and recent case laws on the same, along with a brief about its punishment. It also seeks to highlight the important provisions covering the topic and analyse the explanations in the relevant provision. 

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 299 to 304 covers offences relating to the human body, out of which the two major crimes of highest punishment are ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. The punishment attached to these offences clearly highlights the importance of rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to protect the life and personal liberty of individuals everywhere. Generally, to punish any crime that has been committed, two essential elements are required to be fulfilled: mens rea, or guilty mind and actus reus, or an act. Specifically talking about murder and culpable homicide, an act has already been done, and the only factor that has to be seen in deciding the punishment is the mens rea with which the crime has been committed. This is the only factor that makes culpable homicide not amounting to murder different from murder. To ponder more upon the same, the article has tried to give a clear idea by giving illustrations and case laws so as to make the topic simple to understand.

It is obviously not shocking to say that a trial for such an offence is very time-consuming and may involve various complications and hardships for both parties; therefore, it is essential to know the statutory scheme behind such an offence as ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’.

What is culpable homicide not amounting to murder 

Culpable homicide is a genus and a broad term that covers certain acts that may not amount to murder and certain other acts that are considered to be murder. There is no definition for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but the same can be inferred from the two most important provisions of the IPC i.e., Sections 299 and 300 of IPC. Section 299 talks about culpable homicide, whereas Section 300 talks about the offence of murder, but a part of Section 300 also covers five exceptions, which are known as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder means an act that is not done with the highest degree of intention and knowledge as required under the essentials for constituting an offence as murder. 

To be precise, we can say that culpable homicide not amounting to murder involves two things:

• The acts that fall under the five exceptions given in Section 300 of the IPC and
• acts which do not fulfil the conditions for murder under Section 300 of the IPC.

What is culpability

Culpability denotes the mental state of an individual. An act by an individual can be done intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, which helps us to ascertain the culpability of such an act. There are levels of culpability that are assigned to certain acts that help us categorise an offence as murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The word ‘culpable’ has been derived from the Latin word “culpe” which means punishment. We can say that only such homicide is punishable which is unlawful or culpable. 

What is homicide

Homicide has been defined as the killing of one person by another, and is the highest form of crime inflicted on a human being by another human being. However, not every homicide is equally punishable, as it depends on the degree of culpability. There are certain exceptions to the same, like killing by a person of unsound mind or under private defence, wherein any criminal intent is absent, and therefore the person can be excused under the law. 

Thus, we can say that homicide can be both lawful and unlawful. Lawful is the one that is excusable and justified under the law as explained above, whereas unlawful is the one wherein an act of killing is accompanied by a criminal intent or mens rea, and it covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder, murder, suicide, and also death by rash and negligent act, which is covered under Section 304A of the IPC.

Essential ingredients of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 IPC

Causation of death is one of the most important essentials of the offence of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. There could be various reasons for such a death, and same have been listed below which can be considered to be the essential ingredients of culpable homicide not amounting to murder:

As per Section 299 of the IPC, these are:

Causation of death

One of the most essential ingredients of proving culpable homicide is the death of the victim through any act or omission by the accused. If the end result is not death, then no offence of culpable homicide could be made against an accused. However, there may be hurt or grievous hurt in such cases but not culpable homicide or murder. The Supreme Court in the case of Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) has clearly held that one of the essential ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide required to be proved by prosecution is that the accused caused the death of the person alleged to have been killed. The same can be proved by circumstantial evidence and discovery of the dead body of the victim has never been considered as the only mode of proving death. 

This judgement was followed in the case of Rishipal v. State of Uttarakhand (2013), and the court noted that failure of the prosecution to assemble evidence of death of the victim would result in failure of most essential requirements in cases of Culpable homicide and murder.

Intention of causing death

The degree of intention under culpable homicide not amounting to murder is comparatively less and not sufficient so as to cause death like in murder. The Delhi High Court in the case of Satpal v. State (1998) observed that the intention to cause a death has to be gathered and inferred from the actions of the accused and the surrounding circumstances such as motive of the accused, utterances made, nature of attack, the time and place of attack, the nature and type of weapon used, the nature of injuries caused and so on. These and other factors are to be taken into consideration to determine whether the accused had requisite intention or not. In this case, there was no material or evidence to show that the act of throwing the stone was such that it can be attributed that such act was likely to cause death of the victim. Hence, the court did not gather the intention of the accused to place it either for culpable homicide or murder.

Intention of causing bodily injury that is likely to cause death

This ingredient talks about such an intention of causing bodily injury to a person which is likely to result in death of that person. For instance, in a fight between A and B, A gave two blows with lathi on head of B which is likely to cause his death and death will not be the result in all probability. Here, bodily injury was the result of his intention only, but death was not the ultimate intention.

Knowledge of the likelihood of causing death

The degree of knowledge is less, and it need not be compulsorily present as in case of murder. In the case of a person giving chokeslam to another person and having knowledge that it is likely to cause the death of such a person and will not in all probability cause the death of that other person. This will be covered under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Unlike murder, the knowledge is not accompanied by the intention in culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

In the case of State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012), the Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the State that the accused driver was having the requisite knowledge of the consequence of his dangerous driving and was made liable under part II of Section 302. The court inferred such knowledge through the driver’s post-accident conduct and fleeing from the spot without caring for the victim.

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder under exceptions to Section 300 IPC

Any of these exceptions mentioned under Section 300 can be availed as a defence by the accused. These acts mentioned below are not purely intentional acts done by the accused alone and are a result of a reaction to the actions of the deceased or derived through lawful powers. As per the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, the essentials of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder are:

Grave and sudden provocation

Deprivation of the power of self-control and by grave and sudden provocation causes that person’s death who gave provocation or causes the death of any person by mistake or accident. There are three provisos to this exception. The first proviso states that the same should not be voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm. The second proviso states that the provocation not to be given by anything done in obedience of the law or by a public servant during his lawful exercise of the powers. The third proviso states that the provocation should not be made through lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Illustration- A abuses and slaps the sister of B several times in front of him and gives grave and sudden provocation. The same will fall under this exception. 

The landmark case on the same is K M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961) wherein the accused was not given advantage under this exception and was booked for murder. This case is discussed below in detail. For case analysis on KM Nanavati case, click here. 

Private defence

Exercise of right of private defence of body or property in good faith and exceeds his power given by law and causes death of person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without any premeditation and intention of doing more harm than is necessary for taking such defence.

Illustration- X was running towards Z with a carving knife in his hand and being scared of his anger and knife, Z fired on him which caused his death. This will fall under the given exception of private defence.

Exercise of legal powers

If the offender is a public servant or aiding a public servant and exceeds his powers in good faith believing to be lawful and necessary for due discharge of his duty ,and without ill-will. In the case of Dukhi Singh v. State of UP (1955), the constable of the Railway Protection Force fired on the thief when he was escaping his arrest in order to catch him, however, it caused his death. But, the constable was given protection under this exception and booked for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

Without premeditation in a sudden fight

During a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without any premeditation, taking undue advantage, or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. In the case of Narayan Nair v. State of Travancore (1955), the court highlighted that in order to establish a case under this exception, there must be a fight with the person who has been killed. Further, in the case of Samuthram v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997), a person in the heat of passion while fighting with another person, picks up a weapon which was handy and caused injuries to that person which resulted in his death. This case was covered under this exception.

Consent

The person suffers death or takes risk of death with his own consent and was above the age of eighteen years. The consent in this case has to be free and voluntary.

Illustration- A, being a 22 years old boy, asked B to feed him poisonous drink, here, the act of B will be covered under this exception. 

If any of these acts are done, they will not be considered or punished for murder; however, the same will be punished for a lesser term under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

Understanding Section 299 of IPC

The essential ingredients of Section 299 have already been highlighted above. Further, the Section also provides for three explanations to make the provisions more clear. The first explanation clarifies that if any person accelerates or increases the chance of the death of another person by causing bodily injury to him who is already suffering from any disorder or disease or bodily infirmity, he will be deemed to have caused his death.

Further, the second explanation states that even if the death might have been prevented by resorting to proper remedies or skilful treatment, the person who caused bodily injury will be held liable if such bodily injury has caused death.

Furthermore, in Explanation 3, it has been clarified that the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not a homicide until any part of that child has been brought forth, even though that child has not been completely born or may not have breathed. In all above three circumstances, the person who caused death will be held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder 

Being an offence that is less grave than murder, the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder does not extend to the death penalty but goes up to life imprisonment, depending upon the degree of intention and knowledge as mentioned under Section 304 of the IPC. The punishment under this Section is divided into two paragraphs. The acts which are covered under Section 299 are made punishable under either of these two parts of Section 304 of IPC.

Section 304: Paragraph 1 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

When an act is done with the intention of causing death or bodily injury which is likely to cause death, then the same is punishable with imprisonment for life, rigorous or simple imprisonment for a maximum period of ten years, and also fine.

In the case of Selvam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012), the accused used the blunt side of the aruval and a stick on the deceased. The court noted that they did not have any intention to cause the death of the deceased. However, the injuries were caused on the head of the deceased, through which the court concluded that they had intention of causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death. Thus, they were made liable under Part 1 of Section 304. Further, in the case of Laxman v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006), wherein the accused was shooting arrows and pelting stones without any accuracy and one of the arrows hit the deceased person and caused his death. The court held him liable under Part 1 of Section 304.

In the case of Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012), accused and the deceased were having no animosity earlier and a dispute was started between them at a spot of construction which was being made by the deceased on his land. A heated exchange of words took place between them, which resulted in a physical fight. In the midst of this, the accused brought a rifle from his home and on the provocation of the deceased, he fired a shot which hit the deceased and caused his death. Accused was a person belonging to the armed forces and was very well aware of his actions. The court noted that though the offence was not committed with any premeditation and intention to kill the deceased, but it was committed with an intent to cause bodily injury which could result in death of the deceased. It was a case involving intention and not knowledge as per the facts, thus the punishment was altered by the Supreme Court from section 302 to Part 1 of Section 304. 

Section 304: Paragraph 2 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

This paragraph states that if an act is done with the knowledge of the likelihood of causing death but without any intention on the part of the offender to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, then it is punishable by rigorous or simple imprisonment for a maximum term of ten years, a fine, or both.

In the case of Dharam Pal and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008), the court held that there was no premeditation by the accused and the fight started in the area where the hand pipe was situated after the exchange of excuses between the deceased and the accused. The court could not gather any intention of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. He was made liable under Part 2 of Section 304 since the case fell under Exception 4 of Section 300.

Further, in the case of Tularam v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018), the facts were quite similar. There was a quarrel between two people which escalated into an altercation and joined by a few family members with lathis and ballam. During this altercation, appellants pierced B with a ballam on his left chest. The Supreme Court held that all the ingredients of Exception 4 of Section 300 are present, as the fight was sudden and not premeditated. There was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death or such bodily injury, but they had knowledge that piercing the chest with a ballam would cause bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Thus, conviction was converted from Section 302 to Part 2 of Section 304 and his sentence was altered to a period of incarceration already undergone since he spent 14 years in the prison.

In the case of Vijender v. State (2020), deceased A was a sister of V and wife of O but at the time of her death, she was living with Z. O and V entered the house and attacked Z where they caught hold of the deceased also. O attacked her with a knife and she died. It was not possible to know if V was aware that O was carrying a knife. The court noted that the assault took place after the exchange of heated words between the accused and Z. The intention of accused O was beyond any doubt, however, there was a doubt on V’s intention to kill A since he was without any arms. Thus, the court concluded that appellant V caused the death of A without any intention but with a knowledge that it is likely to cause death. The conviction of appellant V was converted from Section 302 to Part 2 of Section 304.

With this, we are able to conclude that intention per se makes the offence more heinous as compared to knowledge of likelihood, which is of a lesser degree than intent and is punishable for a lesser term as well.

Attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder 

Section 308 of the IPC covers the penalty for attempting to commit culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. Even an attempt to commit an act with such knowledge and intention as if he can cause death by such an act and will be punishable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is liable to be punished even if the death is not so caused. The punishment prescribed for the same is rigorous or simple imprisonment for a maximum term of three years, a fine, or both. 

Further, if hurt is caused by  such an act to any person, then that person will be punished for rigorous or simple imprisonment for a maximum term of seven years or fine or both.

For instance, if there is a person, A, who is a public servant, and he, by exceeding his powers without any ill-will towards B, fires a pistol at him under such circumstances as to cause his death, but the pistol could not hit him, then he will be made liable under this section.

Illustrations

• A knows that S is behind the tree, but B is not aware of it. A, intending to cause S’s death or knowing it to be likely to cause S’s death, induces B to fire at the tree. Here, A is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder since no definite knowledge is present and there is also no 100% probability that S will be killed. 
• A induced B to put the fire at the house, knowing that Z was sitting on the balcony and that fire is likely to cause his death. Here, A is liable for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because A has knowledge but B has no such knowledge or intention. So, only A will be liable.
• A gives a chokeslam to B, which, to his knowledge, is likely to cause B’s death. Here, A is liable for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because here A only has knowledge that a certain act is likely to cause B’s death. Thus, falling under Section 299 of the IPC.
• A, who was the sister of B, was seen marrying S after running from her home. B in grave and sudden provocation fired a pistol at S, which killed him. Here, the case will fall under the first exception to murder, and B will be liable for culpable homicide. 
• B provoked A on 1st July, 2023. On 3rd July, 2023, A stabbed B to death. Here, the provocation cannot be called grave and sudden; therefore, A will be held liable for murder.
• A, a police officer goes to arrest a person, B, and he was running away. A shoots at B. Here, A will not be held liable for murder but for culpable homicide not amounting to murder as he exceeded his powers of lawfully arresting B.
• A was suffering from a disease and had been lying in the hospital for several weeks. B was not able to see A in such a situation and therefore accelerated his death. He will be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder as per Explanation 1 of Section 299 of the IPC.

Difference between culpable homicide and murder

Basis of differentiation	Culpable Homicide	Murder
Meaning/ Concept	A death is caused by doing an act that is likely to cause the death.	A death is caused by an act which is done with a sufficient intention to cause the death.
Essentials	Death caused with the intention of causing death orIntention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or knowledge of the likelihood of causing death.	Death caused with the intention of causing death or Intention of causing such bodily injury and knowledge of its likelihood of causing death or intention of causing bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death or with the knowledge that it is imminently dangerous to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death in all probability.
Provisions	Sections 299 and 304	Sections 300 and 302
Degree of intention	Comparatively less	Sufficient so as to cause death
Knowledge	Knowledge of the likelihood of causing death	Compulsory to be present
Purpose (majorly)	Likelihood of causing death	Causing death
Punishment	Imprisonment for life or up to ten years of imprisonment and fine as mentioned in the first para of Section 304 if the death is caused with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Imprisonment for life or up to ten years of imprisonment or fine or both as mentioned in the second para of Section 304 if an act has been done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but the same is done without any intention or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.	Death or imprisonment for life and a fine

The degree of responsibility is taken into consideration. When the probability of death is high, it is considered murder, and when the probability is low, it is considered to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. To interpret the difference in both concepts, one must know the distinction between intention and knowledge, which was laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basdev v. The State of Pepsu (1956). It was held that an intention is formed through the motive of an individual and is the highest degree of culpability, whereas knowledge is knowing the consequences of one’s actions. 

Landmark case laws on culpable homicide

Reg v. Govinda (1876)

Facts of the case

In this case, husband and wife had a fight wherein the accused, who was the husband, knocked down his wife and gave her two to three violent blows on her face that resulted in extraversion of blood in her brain. As a result, the wife died. 

Issue raised

Whether the accused will be held liable for murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Judgement

Since the act was not done with the intention of causing death, and the court also noticed that bodily injury was not sufficient in the ordinary course of action to cause death, the accused was held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)

Facts of the case

In this case, the accused was a naval officer who murdered a businessman from Mumbai, Prem Ahuja, from having an illicit relationship with his wife. His wife told him about their relationship, and after that, the accused went to his ship, took out the revolver, and went to the house of Prem Ahuja. After the heated arguments, he shot him dead. 

Issue raised

Whether the accused caused death by sudden and grave provocation and whether the act will be covered under an exception to murder

Judgement

The accused was convicted under Section 302 for murder, and the court gave the reasoning that there was a difference of three hours after he left his house and murder took place. The accused had sufficient time to regain his self-control. His conduct has led him to conclude that the murder was very calculated and pre-planned. 

Nathan v. State of Madras (1973)

Facts of the case

The landlord was trying to forcefully evict the tenant, who was the accused in this case. While exercising his right to private defence, the accused killed the landlord even when the landlord was not carrying any deadly weapon and therefore had no fear for the accused. 

Issue raised 

Whether the tenant will be liable for murder or culpable homicide by claiming an exception under Section 300 IPC

Judgement

The accused was held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder since he exceeded his right to private defence by killing the landlord even when there was no fear of death to the accused. 

Kusa Majhi v. State of Orissa (1985)

Facts of the case

In this case, a mother who was deceased warned her son not to go fishing with his friends. The son, out of anger, brought an axe and gave her blows, due to which she died. 

Issue raised

Whether the act of the son amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Judgement

The case was considered culpable homicide, not amounting to murder as it has caused bodily injury that was likely to cause death. The court also noted that it was out of a sudden moment and not pre-planned. 

Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab (2011)

Facts of the case

In this case, there were three accused persons who were involved in constructing a drain. The deceased, when objecting to the construction of a drain, was attacked by the accused who were carrying gandasi and dangs. As a result, he died. 

Issue raised

Whether the accused persons will be held liable for murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Judgement

The accused persons were held liable under Section 304 (paragraph 1) for culpable homicide since there was no prior intention to kill the deceased, and it happened all of a sudden when the deceased tried to stop them. 

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)

Facts of the case

In this case, the accused was pointing a gun at the top of the house, and during a celebratory gunfire, his bullets hit someone and killed two people. 

Issue raised

Whether the same amounted to murder or due to a lack of intention on the part of the accused, he will be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Judgement

The Supreme Court held him guilty under para 2 of Section 304 IPC since he had knowledge that his bullet could kill someone, but there was no intention on his part to kill someone.

Recent case laws on culpable homicide

Boya Badannagari Laxmanna, Siddanagattu (V) Kurnool v. State (2022)

Facts of the case

In this case, the accused, after marrying the deceased, came to know about her infidelity. He used to beat the deceased, and in 2008, the prosecution alleged that the accused caused the death of the victim using a jeep mudguard. The case was heard by the High Court in an appeal.

Issue raised

Whether the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and whether there was any relevant evidence to prove the same?

Judgement

The prosecution could not prove the presence of the accused at the time of the death of the deceased, and all the direct witnesses turned hostile during cross-examination. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the conviction under Section 304 could not be sustained, and it was set aside.

Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022)

Facts of the case

In this case, the appellant was convicted of murder for killing his brother. He himself made the confession at the police station, but the same was inadmissible. He also gave a statement as to the weapons that were recovered. The deceased was an alcoholic, and the murder took place out of sudden provocation by the deceased. The case was brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Issue raised

Whether the act of the accused amounted to murder or falls under the exceptions to murder

Judgement

The court noticed that the testimonies of the family members revealed that the deceased was an alcoholic and used to threaten and abuse the accused often. The accused had also tried to commit suicide. At that moment also, there was a loss of self-control, and it was due to the acts of provocation of his brother that the accused caused his death. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court converted the conviction of the accused from Section 302 to Para 1 of Section 304 IPC. 

Ex. Ct. Mahadev v. The Director General, Border Security Force & Ors. (2022)

Facts of the case

In this case, the appellant was posted in Tripura, adjoining the Bangladesh border, which was famous for smuggling. The deceased was carrying out smuggling activities, and his name was also mentioned in the list received from BSF. The appellant had fired on the deceased, and he died as a result of the same, and it was admitted by the appellant as well. According to him, several persons who were carrying weapons tried to gherao him, and apprehending a threat to his life, he fired at that circle. As a result, the deceased fell to the ground and died. 

Issue raised

Whether the accused will be held liable for murder or can he be given the benefit of exception of right to private defence and will be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the right to private defence will be available to the appellant because the preponderance of probabilities lies in their favour. Since the people surrounding him were armed with weapons and had no other option left, he fired at them. The offence will fall under exception 2 of Section 300 IPC and will attract punishment under Section 304 IPC. The court further noticed that the appellant has already undergone the sentence of over eleven years; hence, the sentence was considered sufficient and he was set free.

Conclusion 

Culpable homicide and murder are considered to be heinous offences since they involve killing of an individual by another individual and thus, have the serious punishment. These are grave offences against mankind as well. It is of no doubt that there has been a lot of confusion between the two, and now we are in a position to conclude that culpable homicide not amounting to murder involves those crimes that are not fulfilling the essentials of murder given under Section 300 of the IPC and which are falling under the exceptions to murder and Section 299 of the IPC. 

We are also able to conclude through various illustrations and case laws that crimes punished under culpable homicide not amounting to murder have a lesser degree of intention and may or may not have knowledge, unlike murder and are punished for a comparatively less term than murder. Even the attempt to commit the offence has been made punishable in order to prevent such future crimes. The defence lawyers obviously try to take advantage of the exceptions and lack of sufficient meaning of certain terms as provided in the provisions, but it is the beauty of the legislation and judiciary that has helped us keep evolving by the precedents set and amendments made therein. However, by looking at certain terms which might have different meanings for different people, like knowledge, probability, and the major and constant use of these provisions in the Indian legal system, there must be more clarifications and justifications on the same. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Which section covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

Section 299 and exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC cover culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

What is the difference between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder?

The basic difference is based on the intention and knowledge required to commit an offence. If there is a lesser degree of intention and knowledge might or might not be present, then it can be called culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but if there is a higher degree of intention involved and knowledge is compulsorily present, then it is taken as murder.

Is death an essential ingredient of culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

Yes, death is a prerequisite for holding a person liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Which section punishes culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

Section 304 of the IPC makes the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable and prescribes the punishment by dividing the same into two different paragraphs.

Is an attempt at culpable homicide not amounting to murder also punishable?

Yes, an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder is also punishable under Section 308 of the IPC.

What is the difference between knowledge and intention?

Intention comes out from the motive of an individual behind doing or not doing a particular act, whereas knowledge is knowing the consequences of one’s acts.

What are the types of homicide?

There are two types of homicides: lawful and unlawful. Lawful homicide is excusable and justified under the law, whereas unlawful homicide is punishable since it involves guilt or mens rea to kill the other person.

Is suicide a homicide and punishable under law?

Suicide is an unlawful homicide, but its attempt is not punishable now since Section 309 of the IPC has been struck down. 

References 

• http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Indian-Penal-Code/chapter8.htm.
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/culpable-homicide-not-amounting-to-murder/ 
• https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S001608/P001744/M027823/ET/1521103847CulpableHomicideNotAmountingtoMurderFinal.pdf