Culpable Homicide and Murder Questions and Answers

Q: Culpable homicide is causing death :

The answer is All of the above.Section 299 of the IPC says that whoever causes death by doing an act:with the intention of causing death, orwith the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, orwith the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death,commits the offence of culpable homicide. Each of the first three options states one of these three alternative mental elements, so all of them together are needed for a complete answer. Whether the culpable homicide amounts to murder then depends on Section 300.

Q: 'A' kills his age old father suffering from severe pain due to old age and diseases with his consent. 'A' has committed :

A has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Exception 5 to Section 300 of the IPC provides that culpable homicide is not murder when the person killed, being above eighteen years of age, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. A mercy killing with the victim's consent therefore falls under this exception and is punishable under Section 304.It is not murder because of the exception, and not attempt because death was caused. It is not 'no offence', since consent does not make intentional killing lawful; Indian law permits only passive euthanasia under the safeguards set by the Supreme Court.

Q: 'A' without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. 'A' has committed :

'A' has committed murder.This is illustration (d) to Section 300 IPC, which falls under its clause 'Fourthly': if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, and commits it without any excuse for incurring that risk, culpable homicide is murder. Firing a loaded cannon into a crowd is such an act, even though A may not have intended to kill any particular person.The act caused death, so it is not an attempt. It is not mere negligence under Section 304A, because A acted with knowledge of the near-certain danger. And though it is culpable homicide, it is the aggravated form that Section 300 calls murder.

Q: 'A' a snake-charmer while showing his play claims to cure the snake bite. The deceased got himself a snake bite believing an assurance of the snake-charmer. The snake-charmer could not cure the deceased. The snake-charmer is liable for :

The key gives culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The facts follow the old snake-charmer case, Queen v. Poonai Fattemah (1869). A charmer who offers to cure a snake bite and lets a person be bitten by a venomous snake knows that death is a likely result of the bite. Under section 299 IPC, causing death by an act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death is culpable homicide. It is not murder because there is no intention to kill and the bite is not shown to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death (section 300). The deceased's consent does not help the charmer: it was given under the false belief that the charmer could cure the bite (section 90), and consent cannot excuse an act likely to cause death.Murder fails for the reason above. Causing death by a negligent act (section 304A) is for deaths caused by rash or negligent conduct without intention or knowledge of the likely result, which does not describe knowingly exposing a person to a venomous bite. 'No offence' is wrong because the false assurance defeats the consent.I could not read the full report of the case, and the accessible summaries disagree on the section applied; the key's reading is the one that follows from sections 299 and 90.

Q: Section 304A of IPC implies :

Section 304A implies absence of intention as well as knowledge.Section 304A IPC punishes causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Culpable homicide (section 299) needs either an intention to cause death or the injury, or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Section 304A covers the remaining cases, where death results from rashness or negligence with neither that intention nor that knowledge.If knowledge alone were present the case would fall under section 299, and presence of intention would make it culpable homicide or murder. So only the absence of both describes section 304A.

Q: Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) with the help of codes given below it point out the correct explanation :Assertion (A) : The difference between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a difference of degree of risk or probability and not its form :Reason (R) : The degree of intention or knowledge determines the nature of the offence.Codes :

The key marks both (A) and (R) true, with (R) the correct explanation of (A).Under Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide becomes murder when the act is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing bodily injury the offender knows is likely to cause death, or with knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. As courts have put it, the two offences are not different in kind; they sit on one scale, and murder is culpable homicide carried to a higher degree of risk or probability of death. That is (A).What places an act higher or lower on that scale is the degree of intention or knowledge the accused had of the likely result, which is what (R) says. So (R) states the reason (A) is true, and the answer is not (B). (C) and (D) fail because both statements are true.(R) is loosely worded, and this explanation follows the key's reading of it.

Q: A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping

The answer is that A has not yet committed the offence.This is an illustration to section 109 of the BNS (attempt to murder). Buying poison and mixing it with food that is still in A's own keeping is only preparation: A can still change his mind, and nothing has yet been done towards Z. The illustration continues that if A places the food on Z's table, or delivers it to Z's servants to place it there, A has committed attempt to murder.Preparation for murder is not punishable as such, so neither attempt to murder nor attempt to commit culpable homicide has been committed yet, and 'Either (A) or (B)' fails for the same reason.

Q: Under what circumstances does Section 103(2) of the Bahrtiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 prescribes punishment for murder committed by a group ?

Section 103(2) applies when the group consists of five or more persons.Section 103(2) of the BNS, a new provision directed at mob lynching, provides that when a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground, each member of the group shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and fine.Three persons is too few for the section. Murder by organised crime syndicates is dealt with under the separate provision on organised crime (section 111), and 'vigilante groups' are not the section's test; what matters is the size of the group and the discriminatory ground.

Q: The offence of mob lynching, newly introduced under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is based on which landmark Supreme Court judgement that laid down preventive and remedial guidelines ?

The judgment is Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India, 2018.In July 2018 the Supreme Court, condemning 'horrendous acts of mobocracy', laid down preventive, remedial and punitive guidelines against lynching and urged Parliament to create a separate offence. Section 103(2) of the BNS now punishes murder by a group of five or more acting in concert on grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief with death or life imprisonment.Shakti Vahini (2018) concerned honour killings, Common Cause (2018) passive euthanasia and living wills, and PUCL (2003) the voter's right to know about candidates.

Culpable homicide is causing death :

A.With the intention of causing death
B.With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
C.With the knowledge that by such act death is likely to be caused
D.All of the above

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: D

The answer is All of the above.

Section 299 of the IPC says that 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. Each of the first three options states one of these three alternative mental elements, so all of them together are needed for a complete answer. Whether the culpable homicide amounts to murder then depends on Section 300.

Discuss in Forum

'A' kills his age old father suffering from severe pain due to old age and diseases with his consent. 'A' has committed :

A.Murder
B.Attempt to murder
C.Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
D.No offence

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2019, SET Exam - 2019,

Answer: C

A has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Exception 5 to Section 300 of the IPC provides that culpable homicide is not murder when the person killed, being above eighteen years of age, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. A mercy killing with the victim's consent therefore falls under this exception and is punishable under Section 304.

It is not murder because of the exception, and not attempt because death was caused. It is not 'no offence', since consent does not make intentional killing lawful; Indian law permits only passive euthanasia under the safeguards set by the Supreme Court.

Discuss in Forum

'A' without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. 'A' has committed :

A.Culpable homicide
B.Murder
C.Attempt to murder
D.Causing death by negligent act

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: B

'A' has committed murder.

This is illustration (d) to Section 300 IPC, which falls under its clause 'Fourthly': if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, and commits it without any excuse for incurring that risk, culpable homicide is murder. Firing a loaded cannon into a crowd is such an act, even though A may not have intended to kill any particular person.

The act caused death, so it is not an attempt. It is not mere negligence under Section 304A, because A acted with knowledge of the near-certain danger. And though it is culpable homicide, it is the aggravated form that Section 300 calls murder.

Discuss in Forum

'A' a snake-charmer while showing his play claims to cure the snake bite. The deceased got himself a snake bite believing an assurance of the snake-charmer. The snake-charmer could not cure the deceased. The snake-charmer is liable for :

A.Murder
B.Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
C.Causing death by negligent act
D.No offence

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2023, SET Exam - 2023,

Answer: B

The key gives culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The facts follow the old snake-charmer case, Queen v. Poonai Fattemah (1869). A charmer who offers to cure a snake bite and lets a person be bitten by a venomous snake knows that death is a likely result of the bite. Under section 299 IPC, causing death by an act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death is culpable homicide. It is not murder because there is no intention to kill and the bite is not shown to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death (section 300). The deceased's consent does not help the charmer: it was given under the false belief that the charmer could cure the bite (section 90), and consent cannot excuse an act likely to cause death.

Murder fails for the reason above. Causing death by a negligent act (section 304A) is for deaths caused by rash or negligent conduct without intention or knowledge of the likely result, which does not describe knowingly exposing a person to a venomous bite. 'No offence' is wrong because the false assurance defeats the consent.

I could not read the full report of the case, and the accessible summaries disagree on the section applied; the key's reading is the one that follows from sections 299 and 90.

Discuss in Forum

Section 304A of IPC implies :

A.Absence of intention
B.Absence of knowledge
C.Absence of intention as well as knowledge
D.Presence of intention but absence of knowledge

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2023, SET Exam - 2023,

Answer: C

Section 304A implies absence of intention as well as knowledge.

Section 304A IPC punishes causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Culpable homicide (section 299) needs either an intention to cause death or the injury, or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Section 304A covers the remaining cases, where death results from rashness or negligence with neither that intention nor that knowledge.

If knowledge alone were present the case would fall under section 299, and presence of intention would make it culpable homicide or murder. So only the absence of both describes section 304A.

Discuss in Forum

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) with the help of codes given below it. Point out the correct explanation :

Assertion (A) : A sword blow in the abdomen of a person constitute the offence of murder.
Reason (R) : It is immaterial that the injury was done without any specific intention.

A.Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanatin of (A)
B.(A) and (R) are occasionally complementary to each other
C.(A) is correct but (R) is not supplementary
D.Both (A) and (R) are wrong

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2024, SET Exam - 2024,

Answer: A

The key treats both as correct, with the Reason explaining the Assertion: Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

The pair is built on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958), where a spear thrust into the abdomen caused death. The Supreme Court held that under clause thirdly of section 300 IPC, once the prosecution proves that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence is murder; it is immaterial that he had no specific intention to cause death.

The other codes are not real relationships between an assertion and a reason ('occasionally complementary', 'not supplementary'), and option D denies a settled rule.

Discuss in Forum

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) with the help of codes given below it point out the correct explanation :

Assertion (A) : The difference between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a difference of degree of risk or probability and not its form :

Reason (R) : The degree of intention or knowledge determines the nature of the offence.

Codes :

A.Both (A) and (R) are individually true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
B.Both (A) and (R) are individually true and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
C.(A) is true but (R) is false
D.(A) is false but (R) is true

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2025, SET Exam - 2025,

Answer: A

The key marks both (A) and (R) true, with (R) the correct explanation of (A).

Under Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide becomes murder when the act is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing bodily injury the offender knows is likely to cause death, or with knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. As courts have put it, the two offences are not different in kind; they sit on one scale, and murder is culpable homicide carried to a higher degree of risk or probability of death. That is (A).

What places an act higher or lower on that scale is the degree of intention or knowledge the accused had of the likely result, which is what (R) says. So (R) states the reason (A) is true, and the answer is not (B). (C) and (D) fail because both statements are true.

(R) is loosely worded, and this explanation follows the key's reading of it.

Discuss in Forum

A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping

A.A has committed attempt to murder
B.A has committed attempt to commit culpable homicide
C.Either (A) or (B)
D.A has not yet committed the offence

Exam Year(s)

Tripura Public Service Commission - 2025,

Answer: D

The answer is that A has not yet committed the offence.

This is an illustration to section 109 of the BNS (attempt to murder). Buying poison and mixing it with food that is still in A's own keeping is only preparation: A can still change his mind, and nothing has yet been done towards Z. The illustration continues that if A places the food on Z's table, or delivers it to Z's servants to place it there, A has committed attempt to murder.

Preparation for murder is not punishable as such, so neither attempt to murder nor attempt to commit culpable homicide has been committed yet, and 'Either (A) or (B)' fails for the same reason.

Discuss in Forum

Under what circumstances does Section 103(2) of the Bahrtiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 prescribes punishment for murder committed by a group ?

A.When the group consists of five or more persons
B.When the group consists of three persons
C.When the murder is committed by organized criminal groups
D.When the murder is committed by vigilante groups

Exam Year(s)

Tripura Public Service Commission - 2025,

Answer: A

Section 103(2) applies when the group consists of five or more persons.

Section 103(2) of the BNS, a new provision directed at mob lynching, provides that when a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground, each member of the group shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and fine.

Three persons is too few for the section. Murder by organised crime syndicates is dealt with under the separate provision on organised crime (section 111), and 'vigilante groups' are not the section's test; what matters is the size of the group and the discriminatory ground.

Discuss in Forum

10.

The offence of mob lynching, newly introduced under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is based on which landmark Supreme Court judgement that laid down preventive and remedial guidelines ?

A.Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India, 2018
B.Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India, 2018
C.Common Cause Vs. Union of India, 2018
D.PUCL Vs. Union of India, 2003

Exam Year(s)

Tripura Public Service Commission - 2025,

Answer: B

The judgment is Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India, 2018.

In July 2018 the Supreme Court, condemning 'horrendous acts of mobocracy', laid down preventive, remedial and punitive guidelines against lynching and urged Parliament to create a separate offence. Section 103(2) of the BNS now punishes murder by a group of five or more acting in concert on grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief with death or life imprisonment.

Shakti Vahini (2018) concerned honour killings, Common Cause (2018) passive euthanasia and living wills, and PUCL (2003) the voter's right to know about candidates.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Culpable Homicide and Murder Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Culpable Homicide and Murder Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications