Section 110 BNS: A Comprehensive Guide to Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide

Introduction to Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), introduced in 2023, represents India’s evolving commitment to updating and modernizing its legal framework. One of the key sections of the BNS is Section 110, which deals with the “attempt to commit culpable homicide.” This section criminalizes acts where the intent or knowledge behind the action could potentially result in death, even if the actual death does not occur. While it may seem like a technical legal distinction, understanding this provision is crucial for grasping how Indian law deals with serious criminal offenses that fall just short of murder.

Overview of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is part of India’s broader effort to modernize its criminal laws and adapt them to current societal and legal challenges. The BNS incorporates many new provisions and reforms to ensure that the law is aligned with 21st-century requirements. With clearer definitions, streamlined processes, and enhanced provisions, the BNS seeks to make India’s justice system more efficient and just.

Purpose of Section 110 BNS

The primary purpose of Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is to criminalize attempts to commit culpable homicide, even when the act does not result in death. The section recognizes the dangerous nature of actions that fall short of murder but still involve the intent or knowledge that the perpetrator’s actions could lead to death.

The key objectives of Section 110 are:

1. Deterrence: By penalizing attempts to commit serious harm or death, the law aims to deter individuals from engaging in acts that could result in fatal consequences, even if they are not completed.

2. Legal Accountability: Section 110 ensures that individuals are held legally responsible for their actions if they show intent or knowledge that could lead to death, even if the victim survives. This upholds the principle that the risk of life-threatening actions cannot go unpunished simply because the act did not fully succeed.

3. Protection of Society: The section protects society by punishing those who engage in life-threatening actions, preventing further harm and signaling that such behavior will not be tolerated.

4. Clarification of Legal Standards: Section 110 provides a clear legal distinction between culpable homicide, murder, and their attempts, helping the judiciary and public to understand the varying degrees of culpability and intent involved in violent crimes.

5. Encouraging Legal Reform: Through the introduction of modernized provisions in the BNS, including Section 110, the law is updated to address contemporary legal challenges, ensuring that justice is fair and responsive to societal needs.

By addressing the gravity of an attempt to commit culpable homicide, Section 110 helps maintain a just and equitable legal system.

What is Culpable Homicide?

Definition and Explanation

Culpable homicide is a legal term that refers to the act of causing death without the intention of committing murder, but under circumstances where the death occurs due to either intention to cause harm or knowledge that such harm could likely result in death. It occupies a position between causing accidental death and murder, distinguishing itself by the perpetrator's intent and the nature of the act.

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), culpable homicide involves two main elements:

1. Intention: The person committing the act must have intended to cause death or cause such bodily harm that could likely result in death.

2. Knowledge: Even if the person did not intend to kill, they must have had the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death.

Key Elements of Culpable Homicide

• Intention or Knowledge: The perpetrator either intends to cause death or acts with the knowledge that their actions could result in death.

• Resulting Death: The action must result in the death of the victim, even if the death was not directly intended.

• Lack of Premeditation or Malice Aforethought: In cases of culpable homicide, the killing is not premeditated in the same way as murder. The act may be committed in the heat of the moment, under provocation, or due to reckless behavior.

Categories of Culpable Homicide

1. Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder: This occurs when the action meets the criteria for murder but has specific mitigating circumstances, such as sudden provocation or acting in self-defense, which reduces the severity of the charge.

2. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder: In this case, death occurs, but the perpetrator does not have the intention to kill, or the circumstances were such that the act cannot be classified as murder. This is a less severe charge compared to murder.

Example of Culpable Homicide

Consider a person in a sudden fit of rage hitting someone on the head with a heavy object, resulting in death. While the person did not plan to kill the victim, the act was carried out with either the knowledge that it could cause death or an intention to cause harm. This would be classified as culpable homicide.

Distinction Between Culpable Homicide and Murder

The key difference between culpable homicide and murder lies in the degree of intention and premeditation. In murder, the intent to kill is more deliberate, often pre-planned, and accompanied by malice aforethought. In culpable homicide, the intent may exist, but it is not as cold-blooded or calculated as in cases of murder. Additionally, culpable homicide may occur under circumstances like provocation or without the direct intent to kill.

Understanding culpable homicide is essential in distinguishing between various degrees of criminal liability and applying appropriate punishment for actions that cause death without fully reaching the threshold of murder.

Text of Section 110 BNS: Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide

The exact legal wording of Section 110 from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is as follows:

“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Key Points of Section 110

• Intention or Knowledge: The accused must have the intent to cause death or the knowledge that their actions are likely to cause death.

• Circumstances: The act must be committed under circumstances where, if death had occurred, it would be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• Punishment:

  1. If the act does not result in death, the person can be punished with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both.

  2. If hurt or injury is caused by the act, the punishment increases to seven years of imprisonment, a fine, or both.

This section covers cases where the perpetrator's actions, though not resulting in death, are serious enough to warrant legal action because they pose a significant risk to life. The law focuses on the intent behind the action and the dangerous potential of the act itself, even if the worst outcome (death) does not occur.

Punishment for Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide Under Section 110 BNS

Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) outlines the punishment for attempting to commit culpable homicide, even when the act does not result in death. The severity of the punishment depends on whether any harm or injury was caused during the attempt.

1. When Death Does Not Occur

If the attempt to commit culpable homicide does not result in the death of the victim, the law still imposes serious penalties:

• Imprisonment: The person attempting to commit culpable homicide can face imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.

• Fine: The court may also impose a fine, either in addition to or instead of imprisonment.

• Both: In some cases, the punishment could involve both imprisonment and a fine, depending on the circumstances of the act and its potential consequences.

2. When Hurt or Injury is Caused

If the attempt results in hurt or injury to the victim, the punishment becomes more severe:

• Imprisonment: The person can face imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.

• Fine: In addition to imprisonment, the offender may also be fined.

• Both: The court can impose both imprisonment and a fine in cases where injury or harm is inflicted during the attempt.

Factors Influencing Punishment

The court may consider several factors while determining the severity of the punishment, including:

• The intent or knowledge of the accused at the time of the act.

• The nature of the act (whether it involved dangerous weapons, life-threatening actions, etc.).

• The extent of harm or injury caused to the victim.

• The circumstances under which the act was committed (e.g., provocation, self-defense, or reckless behavior).

Legal Interpretation and Application of Section 110 BNS: Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide

The legal interpretation and application of Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses attempts to commit culpable homicide, involve understanding the nuances of intention, knowledge, and the actions of the accused. Courts often rely on these elements to determine whether an act qualifies as an attempt to commit culpable homicide and to assess the appropriate punishment.

Interpretation by Courts

1. Intention or Knowledge

For an act to be considered an "attempt to commit culpable homicide," the courts focus on whether the accused had the intention to cause death or acted with the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death.

• Intention: The perpetrator must have a clear intention to cause harm, which could result in death. This is often inferred from the nature of the act, the use of deadly weapons, or the target areas of the body.

• Knowledge: Even if there was no direct intent to kill, the accused may still be held liable if they acted with the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death. Courts scrutinize the level of recklessness or dangerous behavior exhibited by the accused to establish knowledge.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of intent and knowledge when determining whether an act falls under the category of an attempt to commit culpable homicide. The court stated that the nature of the act and the circumstances surrounding it play a critical role in understanding the mental state of the accused.

2. Actions or Circumstances

The courts look for specific actions that show the accused had gone beyond mere preparation and had committed an overt act toward completing the crime. The act must be sufficiently proximate to the commission of culpable homicide, meaning that it was more than just a plan or preparation.

• Overt Acts: The accused must have taken a clear step toward causing death, such as using a weapon, physically attacking the victim, or engaging in an act that has the potential to result in death.

• Proximity to Crime: The act should be close enough to the actual crime of culpable homicide that, had it not been interrupted or stopped, it would have led to the death of the victim. Mere preparation or planning without any substantial steps taken is not enough to qualify as an attempt.

In Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court discussed the need for the act to be more than just preparatory and emphasized that the actions must be proximate to the commission of the crime to qualify as an attempt.

Application in Court Rulings

1. Evidence of Intention and Knowledge

The courts frequently examine both direct and circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s intent or knowledge. For instance, witness testimonies, the nature of the weapon used, and the location of the injuries inflicted on the victim can all help in determining whether the accused had the necessary intent or knowledge that their actions could cause death.

• In State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, the use of a firearm with the intent to kill, even though the bullet missed the victim, demonstrated clear intent, and the court ruled it as an attempt to commit culpable homicide.

2. Consideration of Circumstances

The circumstances surrounding the act, including provocation, self-defense, or sudden rage, are also considered by the courts. These factors can either mitigate or aggravate the offense, influencing the severity of the punishment.

• In Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, the court ruled that sudden provocation reduced the charge from an attempt to commit murder to an attempt to commit culpable homicide. The mitigating circumstances played a key role in determining the level of culpability.

Real-life Examples of Section 110 BNS Application

1. Case 1: Use of a Deadly Weapon in a Fight A person, during a heated argument, strikes another individual with a heavy object aimed at a vulnerable part of the body. Although the victim survives the attack, the nature of the weapon and the intent to cause serious harm qualifies the act as an attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 110 BNS.

2. Case 2: Reckless Driving A driver, in an attempt to scare pedestrians, speeds through a crowded area with the knowledge that such an action could cause death. Even if no one is killed, the driver’s knowledge that their actions were likely to result in death makes this an attempt to commit culpable homicide.

Mens Rea (Mental Element) and Actus Reus (Physical Element)

• Mens Rea (Intent or Knowledge): The courts analyze the accused's mental state during the act. This includes intent to cause death or knowledge that the actions could likely result in death. Mens rea must be proven for the act to fall under Section 110.

• Actus Reus (Physical Act): The accused must have performed an overt act, demonstrating a substantial step toward committing the crime of culpable homicide. The actus reus shows the physical execution of the criminal intent.

Challenges in Proving Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide

Proving an attempt to commit culpable homicide can be legally complex due to:

• Establishing Clear Intent: Prosecutors must provide clear evidence of the accused’s intent or knowledge, which can be challenging to infer from circumstantial evidence alone.

• Determining the Degree of Action: The line between preparation and attempt can be blurred, requiring detailed examination of the facts to establish whether the act was proximate enough to constitute an attempt.

Defenses Against Charges Under Section 110 BNS: Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide

Defending against charges under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses attempts to commit culpable homicide, involves challenging the essential elements of the crime, such as intent, knowledge, and the nature of the act. There are several legal defenses that an accused person can raise to reduce or eliminate their liability under this section.

1. Lack of Intent or Knowledge

One of the primary defenses in cases of attempted culpable homicide is demonstrating that the accused did not have the necessary intent or knowledge required to commit the crime.

• Absence of Mens Rea (Intent): The defense may argue that the accused lacked the intent to cause death or serious harm. For example, if the act was accidental or a result of a mistake, the prosecution's case could be weakened, as mens rea (the guilty mind) is a critical component of the crime.

• Mistake or Accident: If the defense can show that the actions were purely accidental and not intended to cause harm, the charge may be dismissed. In this case, there would be no intent to commit culpable homicide, and the actions may be viewed as negligent rather than criminal.

For example, if a person swung an object in self-defense but did not aim to seriously harm or kill, this could be argued as a lack of intent to commit culpable homicide.

2. Insufficient Actus Reus (Overt Act)

The law requires that an overt act be committed to qualify as an "attempt." A strong defense may challenge the prosecution’s assertion that the accused committed a substantial step toward causing death.

• Mere Preparation: The defense can argue that the accused's actions were only preparatory and did not constitute a direct move toward the commission of the crime. Under Section 110 BNS, mere preparation is not enough; the accused must have taken significant steps toward completing the act.

• Abandonment: If the accused voluntarily abandoned the criminal attempt before completing the crime, this could be a defense. The abandonment must be voluntary, not because of an external factor such as the fear of being caught. This defense is based on the idea that the accused changed their mind and did not fully commit to the crime.

3. Self-Defense

Self-defense is one of the most common and powerful defenses against charges of attempt to commit culpable homicide. If the accused acted in self-defense or defense of another person, and the force used was proportionate to the threat faced, the actions may be justified under the law.

• Proportionate Response: The defense must show that the force used was reasonable and necessary to prevent harm. If the accused acted to protect themselves from an immediate and life-threatening danger, they may be exonerated from the charge.

For example, if a person, in an effort to defend themselves from a deadly attack, causes serious harm to the attacker, they can claim self-defense if their actions were proportionate to the threat they faced.

4. Provocation

The defense of grave and sudden provocation can be used to mitigate the severity of the charge. If the accused was provoked into committing the act under extreme emotional disturbance or in the heat of the moment, the crime may be reduced from an attempt to commit murder to an attempt to commit culpable homicide, or the punishment may be mitigated.

• Grave and Sudden Provocation: The provocation must be significant enough to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. If the act was a spontaneous response to a situation, without time for the accused to reflect or cool down, this defense may apply.

For instance, if a person is suddenly and violently provoked and reacts in a way that causes serious harm, but without a premeditated intention to kill, they can claim provocation as a mitigating defense.

5. Mental Incapacity or Insanity

A defense based on mental incapacity or insanity can also be raised, arguing that the accused was not in a sound mental state at the time of the act and therefore could not form the requisite intent to commit culpable homicide.

• Insanity Defense: If the accused was suffering from a mental disorder that prevented them from understanding the nature and consequences of their actions, or from distinguishing right from wrong, they may be acquitted on the grounds of insanity.

In cases where the accused was acting under delusions or was unable to control their behavior due to a mental illness, this defense can be effective.

6. Duress or Coercion

Another defense is that the accused was forced or coerced into committing the act under duress, meaning they were compelled to act due to threats or harm to themselves or others.

• Immediate Threat: The defense must prove that the accused faced an immediate threat of serious harm or death and had no reasonable alternative but to commit the act. This defense recognizes that the accused’s actions were not voluntary but rather the result of external pressure.

For example, if a person is forced at gunpoint to attack another person, they can claim that their actions were not voluntary and that they were acting under duress.

7. Infancy or Lack of Capacity

If the accused is a minor or otherwise lacks the legal capacity to understand the nature of their actions, this could serve as a defense. Courts may show leniency or reduce charges when the accused is a child or suffers from a mental condition that impairs their judgment.

• Infancy: Under the law, children below a certain age (typically below 7 years) cannot be held criminally responsible. Even for minors above that age, the courts may treat them differently, with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

8. Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication generally does not serve as a defense in most criminal cases. However, in some rare circumstances, involuntary intoxication, where the accused was drugged or forced to consume alcohol or narcotics, can be used as a defense to show that the accused lacked the intent or knowledge required to commit culpable homicide.

Comparison of Section 110 BNS with Other Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals specifically with the attempt to commit culpable homicide, and it is essential to understand how it compares to other related sections within the BNS. This comparison provides a clearer understanding of the various degrees of culpability and the corresponding legal provisions.

1. Section 109 BNS: Attempt to Commit Murder

Section 109 BNS covers the attempt to commit murder, which is a more severe offense than the attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 110 BNS. Both sections deal with incomplete crimes where death does not occur, but the critical difference lies in the intent behind the act.

• Intent and Severity: In Section 109 (Attempt to Commit Murder), the intent to kill is explicit and premeditated, meaning the accused must have had a clear, deliberate intention to cause death. By contrast, Section 110 (Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide) deals with situations where the accused’s actions could cause death but are not necessarily premeditated or planned with the intent to murder.

• Punishment: The punishment for an attempt to commit murder is typically more severe than for culpable homicide, reflecting the higher degree of moral blameworthiness. Attempt to murder can result in life imprisonment, while attempts to commit culpable homicide under Section 110 carry a maximum imprisonment term of up to seven years (if injury occurs) or three years (if no injury occurs).

Comparison: While both sections criminalize dangerous actions that could result in death, Section 109 requires a higher degree of intent (premeditation or malice aforethought), and the punishments are more stringent compared to Section 110, where the intent might be less direct or more circumstantial.

2. Section 106 BNS: Culpable Homicide by Causing Death of a Person Other than the Person Whose Death Was Intended

Section 106 BNS deals with situations where a person commits culpable homicide by causing the death of someone other than the intended victim. This provision covers cases where the intended act of killing or causing harm leads to the death of another, unintended victim.

• Focus on Consequences: Section 106 BNS emphasizes the result of the act (the unintended death of another person), whereas Section 110 focuses on the attempt to commit culpable homicide, irrespective of whether death actually occurs.

• Example: If a person aims to kill one individual but accidentally kills another, Section 106 BNS would apply. Section 110, on the other hand, would apply if the person attempted to kill but did not succeed in causing any death.

Comparison: Section 106 BNS addresses the actual occurrence of death but under unintended circumstances, while Section 110 addresses the attempt to cause death that does not result in death. Both sections deal with culpable homicide, but Section 110 emphasizes incomplete actions, whereas Section 106 looks at unintended consequences.

3. Section 111 BNS: Organized Crime and Culpable Homicide

Section 111 BNS concerns criminal offenses committed as part of organized crime, where culpable homicide or other violent crimes may occur as part of a broader conspiracy or criminal enterprise.

• Organized Crime: If a person attempts to commit culpable homicide as part of an organized crime network, Section 111 BNS may come into play, imposing additional penalties for the structured nature of the crime.

• Increased Penalties: The involvement in organized crime often leads to enhanced penalties, reflecting the systemic nature of such offenses. This section can elevate the punishment of an attempted culpable homicide under Section 110 if it is linked to organized criminal activity.

Comparison: Section 110 BNS applies to individual actions, whereas Section 111 BNS applies when the attempt to commit culpable homicide is part of a larger criminal organization, which may result in increased penalties due to the organized nature of the offense.

4. Section 105 BNS: Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

Section 105 BNS outlines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is the full offense, as opposed to an attempt (which is covered under Section 110). This section applies when the act of culpable homicide is completed and results in death.

• Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder: This section deals with cases where the accused caused death, but the circumstances or intent did not rise to the level of murder. It applies to situations where the intent was not premeditated or where mitigating circumstances exist.

• Comparison to Section 110: Section 110 applies when there is only an attempt to commit culpable homicide, whereas Section 105 applies when the crime is completed and results in death. The distinction is that Section 110 addresses incomplete crimes, whereas Section 105 deals with completed homicides with reduced intent compared to murder.

Comparison: Section 105 involves the actual commission of culpable homicide, whereas Section 110 deals with attempts that fail to result in death. The intent in both sections may be similar, but the degree of completion of the crime differentiates them.

5. Sections Related to Self-Defense and Exceptions

Several sections of the BNS provide exceptions and defenses, such as self-defense, which can mitigate or negate liability for culpable homicide or attempted culpable homicide:

• Self-Defense (Chapter III of BNS): This chapter outlines the general exceptions, including self-defense, which can serve as a valid defense to charges under Section 110. If the accused can prove that their actions were justified due to an imminent threat, they may be exonerated.

• Grave and Sudden Provocation: This defense can be used in cases where the accused acted in the heat of the moment due to provocation, which can reduce the charge from murder or attempted murder to culpable homicide or attempted culpable homicide.

Comparison: These exceptions apply across multiple sections, including Section 110, and serve as mitigating factors that reduce the severity of the crime or exempt the accused from liability altogether.

Conclusion

Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) plays a pivotal role in criminal law by addressing the attempt to commit culpable homicide, ensuring that individuals are held accountable for their dangerous actions, even if they do not result in death. It emphasizes the importance of intent and knowledge in determining the culpability of an accused person. The legal provisions aim to strike a balance between punishing serious, life-threatening behavior and distinguishing it from more severe crimes like attempted murder.

The section interacts closely with other provisions in the BNS, including Section 109 (attempt to commit murder) and Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), allowing the legal system to handle various degrees of violent offenses with appropriate penalties. By focusing on the mens rea (mental intent) and actus reus (physical action), Section 110 ensures that incomplete yet dangerous actions are not overlooked and that justice is served for those who engage in reckless or malicious conduct.

In comparison to related sections, such as those dealing with full offenses like murder or culpable homicide, Section 110 ensures that attempts to cause harm are also punishable under law. It also allows for legal defenses like self-defense or lack of intent, ensuring that the justice system can differentiate between willful, dangerous actions and those made under extenuating circumstances.

In conclusion, Section 110 BNS reflects the evolving nature of Indian criminal law, ensuring that the justice system remains effective, balanced, and responsive to both individual actions and the broader protection of society.