Section 100 BNS establishes the core components of culpable homicide. It requires the confluence of a physical act (Actus Reus) and a specific mental state (Mens Rea). Section 100 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, essentially addresses situations where someone's actions lead to another person's death under specific circumstances. Section 100 of BNS covers instances where the fatal outcome arises from an act carried out with the aim of causing death or with the intention to inflict bodily harm that a reasonable person would understand carries a significant risk of causing death. Furthermore, Section 100 BNS also applies when someone commits an act knowing that it is highly probable to result in death, even if that wasn't their intention. In simpler terms, it deals with death that occurs because of someone's deliberate actions while knowing that it can cause substantial danger to someone's life. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

Section 100 BNS: 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. 

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.

Note: “The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders.”

Download Free PDF on Section 100 BNS 2023 PDF

Section 100 BNS was enforced on July 1, 2024, before Section 299 of the IPC served as the cornerstone definition for Culpable homicide. It contained the same core definition and the identical three explanations that are now found under Section 100 of the BNS. Under Section 100 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the offence of culpable homicide is established when an individual's actions result in the demise of another person under the following conditions:

• The act was committed with the intention of causing death.
• The act was committed with the intention of causing bodily injury of such a nature that a reasonable person would recognize its likely consequence as death.
• The act was committed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, even in the absence of intention to cause death.

Section 100 BNS Essential Elements

For an offence to be punishable under Section 100 BNS 2023 certain important elements must be present. The elements ensure that the act falls under the scope of public culpable homicide. Section 100 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 delineates the essential constituents of culpable homicide, requiring the convergence of a physical act (Actus Reus) and a specified mental state (Mens Rea).

Actus Reus

The physical element lies in the commission of an act that causes the death of a human being. It establishes a causal link between the act of the accused and the resultant death of the deceased. In the absence of such causation, the offence of culpable homicide is not constituted.

Mens Rea

The requisite mental element, or guilty mind, is characterized by one of three distinct types, as mentioned in the section:

• The intention of causing death: This denotes a direct and deliberate objective to bring about the demise of the victim. Legally, intention signifies a conscious aim or desire to achieve a particular consequence.
• The intention of causing such bodily injury which is likely to cause death: The primary intention lies in the infliction of a particular form of bodily harm, coupled with the comprehension that such injury carries a probability of causing death. The focus is on the subjective intent to cause the injury itself, whereas the 'likelihood' of that injury resulting in death is often assessed objectively, potentially through the consideration of medical evidence.
• The knowledge that the act is likely to cause death: This entails the performance of an act with the consciousness that it possesses a high probability of resulting in death, notwithstanding the absence of intention to cause death or an intention to cause a specific injury known to be fatal. Knowledge signifies an awareness of the probable consequences, distinct from intention, which implies a desire for those consequences.

The concurrence of the Actus Reus of causing death with the presence of any one of these three specified mental states is sufficient to establish the offence of culpable homicide under Section 100 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 100 BNS 2023 corresponds closely to Section 299 of Indian Penal Code 1860, which defines the offence of culpable homicide. The following is the comparison between the two provisions:

Section 100 BNS Punishment 

Section 100 BNS defines the offence of culpable homicide but it does not prescribe any punishment. The punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is given in Section 105 BNS (which corresponds to the former Section 304 IPC). Section 105 BNS distinguishes the punishment based on the type of mens rea involved, reflecting the different degrees of culpability recognized within Section 100 BNS:

• If the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and a fine.
• If the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and a fine.

Section 100 BNS and Section 101 BNS Comparison

Section 100 BNS defines culpable homicide, while Section 101 BNS defines murder. Culpable homicide is the broader category ("genus"), and murder is a specific type of culpable homicide ("species").

• Culpable Homicide (S. 100): Requires intention or knowledge related to causing death.
• Murder (S. 101): Requires a higher degree of intention or knowledge, such as intention to kill, intention to cause injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or knowledge of an imminently dangerous act.

Essentially, all murders are culpable homicides, but not all culpable homicides are murders. The key difference lies in the level of culpability. Additionally, Section 101 BNS includes exceptions. Suppose an act meets the definition of murder but falls under an exception (e.g., grave and sudden provocation). Therefore, Section 100 of BNS provides the foundational definition, while Section 101 BNS delineates the specific conditions that elevate culpable homicide to murder, subject to the specified exceptions.

Section 100 BNS Judicial Interpretation

Judicial interpretation of section 100 BNS by Indian courts has been crucial in distinguishing it from murder (Section 300 IPC) and in clarifying the required mental state (mens rea), mentioned hereinafter are some of the landmark judgments on section 100 BNS or section 299 IPC: 

• Reg. v. Govinda (1876): This is a landmark case that established the fundamental distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC) and murder (Section 300 IPC). It highlighted the importance of the degree of intention and knowledge in determining the nature of the offense.
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961): The KM Nanavati case is famous for its consideration of the defense of "grave and sudden provocation." The court examined whether the accused's actions, though resulting in death, could be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the provocation he received.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya (1976): In this case, the Supreme Court further elaborated on the differences between Section 299 and Section 300 IPC. The court emphasized that the level of intention or knowledge is one of the determinative factors in distinguishing between the two offenses.
• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958): This Virsa Singh Case dealt with a situation where the accused caused a specific bodily injury that resulted in death. The court discussed the elements required to establish that the injury was intended, and whether it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
• Sanjeev v. State of Haryana (2015): The accused, Sanjeev, was initially convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for the death of Raj Pal, whose body was found near a tubewell after a confrontation. The Court observed that while the accused had inflicted fatal injuries, the incident occurred in the heat of the moment without premeditation. Applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which covers sudden fights without cruel or unusual conduct, the Court held that the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and accordingly reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing Sanjeev to 10 years of imprisonment. The judgment emphasized that while motive is not essential, the intention and knowledge of the consequences are crucial in determining the classification of culpable homicide.

Conclusion

Section 100 BNS defines the offence of Culpable Homicide, outlining the essential elements of causing death (actus reus) combined with specific mental states (mens rea) involving intention or knowledge. A detailed comparison reveals that Section 100 of BNS is textually identical to its predecessor, Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The most significant implication of this identity is the continuity of legal principles and the direct applicability of the vast jurisprudence developed under Section 299 IPC to cases falling under Section 100 BNS.