BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1958 SC 465AIR 1977 SC 45
Non-BailableCognizable: CognizableCourt of Session
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 299 to BNS 107.
2
Three-limb mental state test preserved — intention to kill, intention of injurious act, knowledge of lethality.
3
Relationship with murder (BNS 103) unchanged.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
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.
Legal Commentary
Section 107 defines culpable homicide — the genus of which murder is the species. Understanding culpable homicide is essential to understanding murder (Section 103), because murder is culpable homicide elevated by additional aggravating circumstances. Every murder is culpable homicide, but not every culpable homicide is murder. Three mental states constitute culpable homicide: (1) Intention to cause death; (2) Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death — where the accused intended to hurt but not necessarily kill, yet the injury was of a type that could foreseeably cause death; and (3) Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death — where there was no specific intent to harm the victim, but the accused knew death was a probable consequence. The third limb is significant — it captures situations like reckless driving or administering poison knowing the victim has a vulnerable condition. The distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder (BNS 103) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder governs whether a conviction leads to life imprisonment (minimum) or lesser sentences — making it the most consequential distinction in homicide cases.
Landmark Precedents
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
RELEVANCE
Landmark judgment definitively interpreting the second clause — the accused need not intend death, but must have intended to cause the specific bodily injury which proved fatal.
State of AP v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976)
RELEVANCE
The Supreme Court drew a systematic distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder — an exhaustive judgment still cited in every homicide case.
Case Simulations
"A doctor administering an incorrect drug knowing the patient has a severe allergy — culpable homicide if death results."
"A person firing a gun into a crowd without targeting anyone specific, causing death — culpable homicide under the knowledge limb."
"A husband who in a rage beats his wife with his fists, not intending to kill but causing fatal injury — likely culpable homicide, potentially murder depending on the nature of injury."
Expert Insights
Culpable homicide is the broader category. Murder (BNS 103) is culpable homicide with specific aggravating circumstances — principally, an intention to kill, or knowledge that death is virtually certain (not merely likely). Culpable homicide not amounting to murder carries lower punishment.
It depends on the degree of recklessness. Gross negligence causing death is culpable homicide by negligence under BNS 106. If you were aware your act was likely to cause death — e.g., racing through a crowded market — it may rise to culpable homicide under BNS 107.