India has the largest constitution in the world, and being the biggest constitution implies that our country has a diverse set of laws which adhere to the variety of complex or simple issues which are faced by the people of the country either occasionally or on a daily basis. These laws are important for the fact that they are responsible for maintaining peace and order in the society.

However, due to the complexity of many such laws, courts often face a tough time trying to find distinctions between certain judgements or sections which define the sort of punishment or remedy a person can get based on the act they have committed. I will be discussing one such distinction where courts often face peril while forming a line of distinction between the two provisions namely, Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Culpable homicide amounting to murder.

Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code defines Culpable homicide as:

1. 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 300 of the Indian Penal Code defines Murder as" Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
2. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
3. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
4. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Thus, we see here that definitions for both these sections do not shine light on much a difference for reasonably distinguishing between the two however, through many years of practice, many relevant case laws and explanations from legal theorists and practitioners have come about as to how to approach this question of the distinction between these two sections when imparting punishment to a person for the crime committed.

Analysis:
Through the definitions above, to start with a small summary of the difference in the sections we can say that, section 299 defines the general concept of Culpable homicide, while section 300 of the IPC further classifies and provides circumstances under which Culpable homicide can amount to murder through the use of Explanations and illustrations used in the Section. We can say that the classification in Section 300 is essential for determining the degree of culpability and the corresponding punishment suited for the offender. Culpable homicide is also a lower offence than murder.

If we look in depth towards the explanations which are given by the section to distinguish between sections 299 and 300, I believe that one difference between culpable homicide and murder is the quantity or the degree of criminality, in the sense that to rule a killing or an offence as murder, there is a greater knowledge or greater intention than in Culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Culpable Homicide is the genus and Murder is the species. To look in depth at the clauses given in Sections 299 and 300, I will compare the wordings of the two clauses, and their explanations to give more satisfying distinctions between the two sections.

Clause (a) of section 299 and (1) of section 300 talk about intention and their definitions are similar. Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (2), (3) of Section 300 deal with the intention to cause bodily damage resulting in death. Now, the term 'likely' which is used in section 299 refers to some possibility or probability that the harm may result in death. Whereas the same term when interpreted in the context of Section 300 implies more certainty towards the death of the victim in the sense that the accused has a better knowledge of the state of his/her victim, any ailment or issue they could be suffering from and the mere possession of this knowledge adds a factor of certainty to any harm or bodily damage caused to the victim which would result in their death.

(Manupatra) When we put Clause (3) of Section 300 under consideration, the purpose of inflicting bodily damages is accompanied by a surety that such injury is sufficient to cause the death of the victim under ordinary circumstances, or in the ordinary course of life. Clause (c) of section 299 and (4) of section 300 deal with the knowledge of the act.

In this scenario as discussed above, if the knowledge of the act is much more as in if death is the only outcome of doing such an act, it will be considered murder and if death is a potential outcome of the act, then it would be considered as culpable homicide.

There have been landmark judgements passed and case laws discussed which help further in drawing a line between the two sections however, it does not come without critique. There are various exceptions which are available at the hands of the accused if they're convicted for murder, these exceptions along with some relevant case laws have been discussed below:

Grave and Sudden Provocation: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisions:

1. That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
2. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
3. That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

In the landmark case of K.M Nanavati Vs the State of Maharashtra (1962), this exception was discussed in much depth and laid down a few principles in order to classify an act as a result of grave and sudden provocation. The court had observed here that, for the purpose of determining sudden and grave provocation, a test has to be established where it should be evident that any reasonable man having the same capacity and standard is placed in a similar situation or circumstance where he/she would be provoked to lose their control.

The circumstances surrounding the act should be taken into consideration i.e. if the act was really provocative for the accused to land the fatal blow and whether the injury done to the victim was a result of an almost instantaneous blow due to the provocation, (nexus law journal) if in evidence it is found that there was sufficient time for the accused to cool down, the exception would not be granted, as is what happened in this case, the court had ruled that K.M Nanavati had sufficient time to cool down and regain his senses after his wife had confessed to him about her affair with Mr. Ahuja. The court had established that between the confession and murder, there was enough time for Nanavati to think about his family's future and regain his senses and therefore, the high court held him guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.

Another Exception is the exception of the right to self/private defence, i.e., if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, "exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence"

In the case of Nathan V. State of Madras (1972), the accused and his wife were in possession of some land where they had been farming for years. Due to untimely payments, both were forcibly evicted and the landlord attempted to harvest the crop. (Casemine) The accused hence killed the landlady in the exercise of his right to defence of private property.

Here, the supreme court had agreed that this act when committed did come under the legal right of the accused's right to private defence against the property, however, the right to defence of private property was restricted to causing any damage other than death under section 104 of the IPC but since the deceased person was not carrying any lethal weapons or arms which could create a reasonable apprehension of the fear of death or severe harm, the accused's right to private defence was violated and hence he was convicted under Culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the exception of clause (2) of section 300.

Another exception is the lawful act of a public servant or acts done in an attempt to aid the public servant in the advancement of public justice and without ill will towards the person whose death is caused. In the case of Dakhi Singh V. state (1955), when the policeman fired a shot at the thief who was trying to flee from arrest, the shot hit a fireman instead. The court here ruled that this case would come under the exception of the right to a lawful act done by a public servant.

Two more exceptions for Culpable homicide amounting to murder are: "Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner."

Explanation: It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. And lastly, "Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his consent"

Conclusion
Thus, through these examples and various case laws, Indian Courts have been able to successfully distinguish between cases concerning culpable homicide and murder. Lastly, One Landmark case i.e., the case of State of A.P v. R. Punayya (1976) was responsible for drawing the line between the two sections and their clauses. The court had held that there were three degrees of culpable homicide, the first degree is murder, the second degree of culpable homicide is punishable under the first part of Section 304 and the third degree of culpable homicide is punishable under the second part of Section 304.

The third degree is the lowest type of culpable homicide a person can get punished for. Therefore, these case laws have helped lawyers and law students gain a better and more in-depth understanding of the two sections which are vital in deciding the fate of any offender and thus help in the betterment and advancement of imparting impartial justice to the people of India. It goes without saying that even now there is a certain line of confusion that exists among legal practitioners when it comes to these sections however, the catch lies in an in-depth look at the degree of the intention and knowledge of which the offender was aware, this is where the line is drawn.

References:

• Casemine. n.d.
• Manupatra. Chapter 8, Culpable Homicide and Murder. n.d.
• "nexus law journal." De Jure Nexus Law Journal (n.d.).