Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 100
Culpable homicide
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. Illustrations.
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable
homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death. Explanation 1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. Explanation 3.—The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Why this exists
This provision continues the definition from Section 299 of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, largely unchanged in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It exists to distinguish killings that involve some level of intention or dangerous knowledge from purely accidental deaths, and to separate 'culpable homicide' (a broader category) from 'murder' (a narrower, more aggravated category defined in the next section). The illustrations and explanations were carried forward from colonial-era drafting to give courts concrete guidance on tricky situations like using an innocent intermediary, treating already-sick victims, medical negligence after injury, and harm to unborn or partially-born children.
How courts read it
Indian courts, interpreting the identical language under the old Section 299 IPC for over a century, have used this provision as the foundation before checking whether a case escalates to 'murder' under the next section. Courts have relied on the three-way test—intention to kill, intention to cause likely-fatal injury, or knowledge of likely death—to sort cases along a spectrum of culpability. Judgments have applied Explanation 1 in cases involving victims with pre-existing conditions (like heart disease) where an assault hastened death, and Explanation 2 to reject defences based on poor medical treatment after the injury. Explanation 3 has been discussed in cases distinguishing feticide from homicide of a partially born child.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Culpable homicide and murder are the same thing.
Fact: Culpable homicide is the broader category; murder (defined in a separate, later section) is a more serious subset of culpable homicide with additional aggravating conditions. Not all culpable homicide is murder, though all murder is culpable homicide. - Myth: If the victim could have survived with better medical treatment, the accused isn't responsible for the death.
Fact: Explanation 2 makes clear that the accused is still deemed to have caused the death even if proper medical care might have saved the victim. - Myth: Killing an unborn child is always treated the same as killing a born person.
Fact: Explanation 3 specifically says causing death of a child still in the womb is not homicide, but killing a child that has partly emerged from the womb—even without taking a breath—can amount to culpable homicide.