Section 105 BNS: Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduced in 2023, represents a significant overhaul of India’s legal framework, replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Its primary aim is to modernize and optimize the criminal justice system. It also aims to address contemporary challenges while ensuring legal processes are more efficient and transparent.
Importance of Understanding Section 105 BNS
Section 105 of BNS, 2023, addresses culpable homicide not amounting to murder, an offence carrying a significant punishment if committed during acts like reckless or impaired driving. This section is particularly relevant when examining culpable homicide within the context of hit-and-run cases and similar situations involving motor vehicle incidents.
Hit-and-run offences have sparked major debates in India, especially high-profile cases that tested the boundaries between intentional and accidental harm.
For example, in cases like the Salman Khan hit-and-run incident, legal debates revolved around intent, recklessness, and knowledge of potential harm. Under Section 105, culpable homicide charges arise when knowledge of harm exists but explicit intent to kill is absent.
Understanding Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder:
In Section 105 of the BNS, culpable homicide is clearly defined. A person commits this offence if they cause death by either:
- Intending to cause death or intending to cause bodily injury likely to result in death, or
- Knowing that their act is likely to cause death, though without the intention to cause such harm.
This law mandates a minimum sentence for intentional acts. The prison term must be at least five years but can extend up to ten years. A fine may also be imposed. If the act was committed with knowledge of the likely outcome (death), but without the intent to cause death or injury, the sentence can be up to ten years in prison. A fine may also be imposed in such cases. A fine may also apply in such cases.
Difference Between Culpable Homicide and Murder
This section is similar to the former Section 304 of the IPC, which also governed cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
However, Section 105 of BNS introduces a mandatory minimum term of five years for intentional acts, a stricter stance compared to the more flexible sentencing options available under Section 304 of IPC.
To explore the broader differences between the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indian Penal Code, including how offences like culpable homicide are treated in both systems, check out our detailed article on the Comparison of BNS to IPC.
Key Elements of Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with the concept of culpable homicide that does not amount to murder, outlining it based on the perpetrator’s intent and knowledge. The following presents an analysis of these crucial elements.
- Culpable Homicide: This refers to an act leading to death, where the perpetrator had knowledge or intent that their actions were likely to cause death. However, such death would not constitute murder if it lacks premeditation or the specific intent to kill.
- Intent: Intent refers to the underlying purpose associated with the act. In culpable homicide cases that do not amount to murder, the perpetrator lacks the explicit intent to kill. In some hit-and-run offences, drivers might act in a state of shock or under provocation or under the influence of intoxicants, such as drunk driving incidents. Acts lacking direct intent to kill but resulting in death due to recklessness or emotional turmoil can be classified under Section 105, not Section 104 (murder).
- Knowledge: Knowledge implies awareness of the potential consequences of an act. The perpetrator understands their actions could lead to death but lacks the specific intent to kill. This awareness is vital in distinguishing culpable homicide from pure accidents or negligence, such as those seen in drunk driving cases.
Understanding Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
Homicide means the killing of a human being by a human being. Section 100 of the BNS defines Culpable homicide as 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 offence of culpable homicide.
Culpable Homicide does not amount to murder when there is a lack of intention and premeditation behind it. In high-profile hit-and-run cases in India, determining intent versus knowledge becomes critical.
For instance, if an accused knocks someone down in a sudden altercation, causing fatal injuries without intending to cause death, they may be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This distinction was upheld in Reg v. Govinda, where a defendant’s lack of intent to kill and insufficiency of injuries in causing death led to a culpable homicide—not murder—conviction.
Understanding Intent and Knowledge in Culpable Homicide
The role of intention and knowledge is an impediment to determining whether a particular offence would fall under the category of Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder or Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. When recklessness or impaired judgment, such as in drunk driving or hit-and-run cases, is present, the law assesses if the defendant had mere knowledge versus an explicit intent to cause death. If so, the crime may fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The determination of whether an act was intentional can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of the case. Factors such as sudden provocation, heat of passion, or actions taken in the heat of the moment may warrant classification under Section 105 rather than Section 104 BNS.
Role of Knowledge is to determine the degree of Culpable Homicide
Knowledge implies awareness of the probable consequences of one’s actions. Here the perpetrator understands that their actions could lead to death, though there is no specific intent to cause it.
For example, an act committed in the heat of passion, without the intent to kill but with the knowledge that such action may result in death, would be covered under this section. In a road rage incident, if the driver, in a fit of anger, strikes another person with their vehicle, knowing it could result in death but without the intent to kill, it constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The absence of intent differentiates the act from murder.
In the case of Jagriti Devi vs State of H.P, it was stated that both the expression “intent” and “knowledge” postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude which is of different degrees. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. mental attitude towards the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. It was further held that if both intent and knowledge were present, the case would fall under the first part of Section 304 of the IPC. However, if there is only knowledge without the intention to cause death by bodily injury, the case would fall under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC.
The Apex Court in Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration) held that “…The framers of the Code designedly used the words ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ and it is accepted that the knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention that such consequences should ensue. As compared to ‘knowledge’, ‘intention’ requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.”
Legal Precedents on Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
The Supreme Court upheld the principle of heat of passion as a mitigating factor. The accused, though aware of the potential consequences of their actions, lacked premeditation and did not intend to kill, resulting in a conviction of culpable homicide instead of murder.
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court examined grave and sudden provocation and its impact on a person’s mental state. The court ruled that if the provocation was sufficient to cause the accused to lose self-control, the offence could be classified as culpable homicide instead of murder.
- Surendar Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
The Court emphasized the importance of lack of premeditation when determining whether an offence qualifies as culpable homicide or murder. In this case, the absence of premeditation and the heat of passion led to a reduced charge.
Defences Available in Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
1. Provocation and Sudden Altercation
The defence may contend that the act occurred in the heat of passion or was triggered by sudden provocation, which can reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
For example, P, is sitting with his friend, Q, when an argument breaks out between them. During the argument, Q insults P deeply by making offensive remarks about P’s family. In a fit of rage and without thinking, P grabs a nearby object and strikes Q, causing Q’s death. The altercation was sudden, and P acted impulsively in the heat of the moment due to the provocation. Here, if the court finds that the provocation was grave and sudden enough to cause P to lose self-control, P could be convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder, due to the sudden altercation and provocation.
2. Lack of Intent
Establishing the absence of a specific intent to kill could lead to a lesser charge and a more lenient sentence under Section 105.
For example, X is having a heated argument with his neighbour, Y. In a fit of anger, X pushes Y. Y, who has a weak heart, falls and sustains a fatal injury from the fall. Y dies as a result. X did not intend to cause Y’s death, nor did he know that pushing Y could lead to such an outcome. Therefore, the offence may be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the lack of intent.
3. Voluntary Intoxication
Section 24 of the BNS holds that if a person commits homicide while under self-induced intoxication, their intent to murder is considered nullified. However, it presumes that the person would have retained the same knowledge had they been sober. Essentially, this defence reduces the liability from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Involuntary intoxication, however, serves as a complete excuse, even in cases of homicide.
For Example,M attends a party where he consumes a large amount of alcohol voluntarily. In a drunken state, M becomes enraged after a verbal argument with his friend, F. M, unable to control his temper due to intoxication, picks up a nearby object and strikes F, causing F’s death. M did not intend to kill F but acted impulsively in the heat of the moment. Here, although M’s act caused death, the absence of intent to cause death may result in culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the defence of voluntary intoxication.
4. Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Beyond Legal Authority
Culpable homicide is not considered murder. Only in cases of a public servant, or someone assisting them in the course of justice. Accidentally causing death by exceeding legal powers also is covered under this. This applies if they acted in good faith, believed their actions were lawful and necessary for their duty, and held no ill will toward the deceased.
For example, Officer A is pursuing a dangerous, armed criminal, X, who is fleeing. X appears to reach for a weapon. Believing in good faith that X might use the weapon to harm others, Officer A shoots to incapacitate him. This results in X’s death. Since Officer A acted solely in his duty to protect the public. Without any ill will, or genuinely believing his actions were lawful and necessary, this act could be considered culpable homicide, not amounting to murder under the BNS exception.
Conclusion
Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita helps determine whether a death caused by someone else should be classified as murder. It also helps decide if it should be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The main difference depends on whether the person had the intent to kill or knew their actions could cause death. This law is especially important in cases like reckless driving or hit-and-run accidents, where death happens without planning. Understanding how these rules work can help ensure fair decisions in cases of culpable homicide.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article was written and submitted by Akhil and you can reach out to the author at Akhil@bnblegal.com.
