diff b/w culpable homicide and murder

This is a very delicate question and needed some text ref also ( IPC of Ratan lal and D lal chap16) Ref case State of AP v Punnaya, 1977Cr LJ: AIR 1977SC 45.

Govinda, (1876) 1 Bom 342

However your presumption will come under culpable homicide because the intention of causing death can not establish to proove murder.

Intention i mean the cause of death of that paticular person who has been killed in the cross fire.

agree with the opinion of my Ld. friend it would culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is covered under section 304 of the I.P.C.

it is transfer of malice.

the criminals had intention to kill police but the bullet wrongly hit a pedestrian. Hence the intention of criminals is to kill by firing. Hence the offence would fall under murder though they killed a wrong person.

thanks but mohana ji, it has to established that he had the intention to do the act which he knew will likely to cause death of the police person. ie 300(2)... both parties are firing at each other and it is probably a blind firing by the criminals without aim and particularity.

the distance is also a relevant fact...

I feel it is 304 part IInd.. ie he had knowledge that he likely to cause death 299 clause 3

Please reply as this is a case of my client and I want to thrash the law....

thanks also to bhupenderji and bharat bhushanji..

In any criminal matter as a thumb rule, intention, motive of the criminal is most important. Here in this case the intention of the criminals was to kill, hurt or you may call it murder the police personnel confronting them and not the pedestrians. They got hit by accident, by mistake or missing the target. There are cold-blooded murder, self-defence murder, impulsive murder, murder by grave provocation. Whereas in the present matter no such case is found and hence it may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Murder is with intention to kill some particular person and not by chance.

well im not much experienced to answer this big querry but whatever i got from it and my mind suggest to me therefore im putting it down!

the facts of the case is the most important point in this matter cross firing means the police went to finsih the criminals if anyone of them is caught or set alive is the differnt aspect but the intention of police is here to kill the criminals. so the intention of police is very much clear. now the point of criminals no doubt that they are criminals but they fired to save their life on police not on the pedestrain and definately the intention of their were to kill the police in front of them but in their defence bcause "marna koi b nahi chahta sab apne apko bachane klye hathiyar uthate h". the pedestrain got died of no reason therefore criminals shall be liable for this but shurely not of murder!

one aspect is also there that the pedestrain got hit by bullet on which body part if u want that criminals shall be held for murder of the pedestrain than u need to proof the intention of criminals to kill the pedestrain because if it hit on heart or somewhere at such place where the pedestrain died on the spot then definately u can take the benefit of this point. the position of pedestrain he was moving or watching the cross firing!

may be my point of view may not be helpful since im also in a learning line so i thought this point to be discussed so i may also get the knowledge form my seniors.

thanks alot!

Men's ria is a beautiful phrase in criminal law. Read more about it and all of you will get your answer.

it means guilty mind!

therefore the querry in my mind is moving what guilty mind at the time of cross firing they had at that time they were playing in their defence second thing I already put the point of facts that criminals were caught in what position did they were trace or while any conspiracy prepartion or at the time of doing the act or prepartion any of the commencement of act which result in their sucsess of doing wrongful act.

anyways definately I will go throught this wonderful phrase again!!!

thanks a lot Sir!