Actually my question is that culpable Homicide is a type of abetment . because I. it's definition we can see that it focuses on intention
.
Greetings.
Well, on the basis of your query, I wish to tell you that culpable homicide is not a type of abetment, rather they are two very distinct offences with almost no similarity. Abetment, which is defined under Sections 107-120 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, simply means helping or facilitating the commission of an offence, while Culpable Homicide, which is defined under Section 299 of the IPC means doing an act which leads to death of a person. Here emphasis should be placed on the words helping and doing. A person who abets an act may or may not actively participate in the commission of the offence, but a person who is charged with culpable homicide plays the most active role in the sense that he does the actual act which leads to the death or bodily injury of the person.
For instance, A tells B that he wishes to cause the death of C, and requests him to arrange a sharp-edged knife for the purpose. B brings a knife and hands it over to A. After that A goes and kills C. In this case, B has abetted the offence by bringing a knife, but has not actually done the act, which was done by A. So here, B shall be liable for the abetment of the offence while A shall be liable for culpable homicide (whether it shall amount to murder is not the subject matter of this query).
A similarity between the two, as suggested by you, is that the intention has to be present. Well, you must know that as per the basic principle of criminal law, a guilty intention has to be present for an act to be considered as a crime. In the above instance, if B had not known the intention and purpose of A behind taking a knife, B would not have been liable for abetment (other facts and circumstanced excluded). So while the focus on intention is there, it is there for the sole purpose of distinguishing a criminal act from a non-criminal one.
I hope that this helps you.
