Preparation for RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and other Judicial Service exams

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita forms the bedrock of any and every Judicial Service exam in the country. Its thorough knowledge is a must for all aspirants of RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and every other Judicial Service exam. To help such aspirants DELHI LAW ACADEMY JAIPUR has launched a series of study material modules on all important aspects of this vital part of their syllabus:

Section 100 BNS

• 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

Section 2(6) BNS

• The word “death” denotes
• the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context

Section 2(1) BNS

• The word “act” denotes
• as well a series of acts as a single act

What is the offence of culpable homicide?

There are two major ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide:

• The actus reus: causing death of a human being by doing an act
• The mens rea: the act must be done with the intention or knowledge specified in the section

• Actus reus is a Latin term meaning “guilty act”
• Mens rea is a Latin term meaning “guilty mind”

Together, they embody the ancient legal maxim:

Facts of the case:

• In a fight between a husband and a wife inside their home, the husband hits the wife with a heavy wooden object on her head.
• The wife gets injured, falls down and becomes unconscious. The husband thinks she is dead.
• To save himself from the charge of killing his wife, he proceeds to hang the dead body of his wife with a rope on the beam of his house to give it a colour of suicide.
• Post mortem shows that she died not by the blow on her head, but by asphyxiation caused by the hanging.
• The husband is tried for the offence of culpable homicide.

ANALYSIS:

• In the incident under consideration, the accused did two acts.
• By the first act, he hit his wife with a heavy wooden object on her head and caused grievous hurt to her.
• For this act, the court found him guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt and punished him under section 326 IPC.
• By the second act, he hanged his wife with a rope.
• This act caused her death.
• He thus caused death of a human being by doing this act.

Question:

Is he guilty of the offence of culpable homicide for this second act?

Ans:

A layman would say, yes, he is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide.

A person well-versed in law would say, no, he is not guilty of the offence of culpable homicide.

Reasons:

• In the present case, actus reus is present. The accused did an act which caused the death.
• What about the mens rea?

Let us find out:

(1) Did he hang her with the intention to cause her death?

• No, he did not hang her with the intention to cause her death because to him she was already dead.
• No one can form an intention to cause death of a person whom he believes to be already dead.

(2) Did he hang her with the intention of causing such bodily injury to her as was likely to cause her death?

• No, because to him she was already dead.

(3) Did he hang her with the rope with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause her death?

• No, because as per his knowledge she was already dead.
• The knowledge must have reference to the particular circumstances in which the accused is placed.

Decision:

• The intention or knowledge required by section 299 was absent.
• Accordingly, he cannot be held guilty of the offence of culpable homicide.

📘 Free Study Material for Judiciary Aspirants!

Download our FREE study material prepared by Delhi Law Academy’s expert faculty.

✅ Check Free Study Material

Facts of the case:

• Two persons attack a woman in her garden in a bid to kill her. They cause three punctured wounds upon her head.
• Believing her to be dead, they throw her in a well to cover up their deed.
• The Post mortem report says she died not from the wounds on her head but from drowning in the well.

ANALYSIS:

• In this case, two acts were done by the accused.
• In the first act of beating her, the accused had the intention to kill the woman but the act did not result in her death, though they believed her to be dead.
• The second act of throwing her into the well caused her death but this time the accused did not have the required intention or knowledge.

Let us see how:

(1) Did they throw her into the well with the intention of causing her death?

• No, they did not throw her into the well with the intention to cause her death because to them she was already dead.
• No one can form an intention to cause death of a person whom he believes to be already dead.

(2) Did they throw her into the well with the intention of causing such bodily injury to her as was likely to cause her death?

• No, because to them she was already dead.

(3) Did they throw her into the well with the knowledge that they were likely by such act to cause her death?

• No, because as per their knowledge she was already dead.
• The knowledge must have reference to the particular circumstances in which the accused is placed.

Question:

Are the accused still guilty of the offence of culpable homicide?

Ans:

Yes.

Reasons:

• In the present case, there was at the beginning an intention to cause death.
• This intention was apparently completely carried into effect but in fact was not.
• Even if the intention at the second stage of the transaction had been merely to dispose of a dead body, the two phases of the same transaction were so closely connected in time and purpose that they must be considered as parts of the same transaction.
• The result of the actions of the accused taken as a whole clearly was to carry out the intention to kill with which they began to act.
• Even if at the time when the woman was thrown into the well she was alive and even if the accused then thought her dead, they would be guilty of murder.

Explore More Free Resources from Delhi Law Academy

Stay updated with our monthly current affairs and explore more important legal and judicial-service articles from Delhi Law Academy.