"Culpable homicide is the genus, and murder is its species" is a key idea in criminal law, especially when it comes to the categorization of crimes including homicide. The philosophical and legal framework of genus and species, a hierarchical structure used to describe thoughts and behaviors, is the basis for this distinction, which has its roots in the classification of crimes.

In this framework, genus refers to a broader category, while species represents a more specific type within that category. Applying this structure to criminal law, culpable homicide serves as the genus—a general category which includes various forms of unlawful killing( For exp.Sec 100,101,106,107 and 108) where there is an element of culpability (blameworthiness). On the other hand, murder is considered a species within that genus, representing the most severe form of culpable homicide, characterized by the intent to kill or cause grievous harm.

Understanding this relationship is essential for distinguishing between different types of homicide and the varying degrees of legal responsibility attached to each. Culpable homicide, as a genus, includes crimes like Murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, death by rash and negligent act, where the level of intent or recklessness may vary. However, murder, as its species, is specifically defined by its intentional and malicious nature, making it one of the most serious criminal offenses with the highest penalties.

This distinction plays a vital role in how criminal justice systems categorize and penalize offenses. The legal implications of this genus-species classification influence everything from the charges brought in a case to the sentences imposed by courts. It also highlights the importance of intent, knowledge, and recklessness in determining the specific nature of a crime.

This exploration of the phrase "Culpable homicide is the genus, and murder is its species" will provide an in-depth understanding of the legal definitions, philosophical implications, and real-world applications of these concepts in criminal law. By examining how culpability is classified within the broader category of homicide, we can better appreciate how the law defines, prosecutes, and punishes different forms of unlawful killing.
Understanding the term Genus and species

In criminal law, the terms genus and species are used in a slightly different context than that we study in biology. They refer to categories or types of crimes, and they help in understanding the relationship between broad criminal offenses (genus) and specific types of those offenses (species).

• Genus in criminal law:
  • The genus refers to a broad category or class of crimes.
  • It includes crimes that share similar characteristics or elements but may differ in some details or severity.
  • For example: Intention element difference between Section 100 and 101.
  • The genus is the general category of an offense, and the species are more specific types or variations within that category.
     
• Species in criminal law:
  • The species refers to a more specific crime within the broader category (genus).
  • It identifies particular crimes that fall under the genus, often defined by specific facts, circumstances, or degrees of severity.
  • Example 1: Theft
    • Genus: Theft (or larceny) is the general category of crimes involving unlawful taking of someone else's property. (Section 303)
    • Species: Specific types of thefts could include:
      • Theft in dwelling house (Section 305)
      • Robbery: Taking property by force or threat of force (Section 309)
      • Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master (Section 306)
      • Theft after preparation made for causing death (Section 307)
  • Example 2: Assault
    • Genus: Assault is the general category involving causing harm or threatening harm to another person. (Section 130)
    • Species: Specific types of assault could include:
      • Assault to deter public servant (Section 132)
      • Assault in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person (Section 134)
  • Example 3: Murder
    • Genus: Culpable Homicide is the broad category of crimes involving the unlawful killing of another person.
    • Species: Specific types of culpable homicide include:
      • First-degree murder: Planned or premeditated murder, or a murder committed with extreme cruelty.
      • Second-degree murder: Murder without premeditation but committed with intent to harm or with reckless disregard for life.
      • Manslaughter: A lesser form of unlawful killing, usually without malice or premeditation (voluntary or involuntary manslaughter).
  • Example 4: Wrongful confinement
    • Genus: Wrongful restraint, i.e., obstructing any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed.
      For example: Obstructing any person from proceeding towards Lodhi Road in Delhi.
    • Species: Wrongful confinement, i.e., obstructing any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits.
      For example: A, while going by wheelchair, B came and punctured the tires of the wheelchair, making it immobile. This is a case of wrongful confinement.
  • Example 5: Hurt
    • Genus: Whoever causes bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. (Section 114)
    • Species: Voluntarily causing hurt (Section 115(1))

Grievous hurt under (Section 116)

• Hurt
• Grievous Hurt

Interpretation of Section 100 (BNS)

Section 100 of BNS states that whoever causes death by doing an act:

• With the intention of causing death,
• 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. Culpable homicide under Section 100 BNS has the following essential elements:

• Causing of death of a human being (actus reus);
• Such death must have been caused by doing an act;
• The act must have been done:
  • With the intention of causing death (mens rea);
  • With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death (mens rea); or
  • With the knowledge that the doer is likely by such act to cause death (mens rea).

Whoever causes death:

The word death used in Section 100 has the same meaning as given in Section 2(6) of BNS, i.e., death of a human being. The word whoever denotes any human being. The word causes relates to causality or causation, thus culpable homicide means death of a human being.

By doing an act:

Death may be caused by various means, such as:

• Poisoning
• Drowning
• Striking
• Beating
• And so on.

It includes not only an act of commission but also illegal omissions. Hence, death may be caused by neglect of duty, such as:

• A parent not supplying food and medical care to their child,
• A husband starving his wife.

Death caused by illegal omission will also amount to culpable homicide. For example, where a jailor voluntarily causes the death of a prisoner by omitting to supply him food. Thus, it includes:

• Single act,
• Series of acts,
• Single or series of illegal omissions,
• Combination of act and illegal omission.

For culpable homicide first of all actus reus is to be examined that is it has to be examined whether death of a human being has been cause or not thereafter next it has to be examine whether accused was responsibe for causing the actus reus i.e., the element of causation or causality between the accused and the actus reus has to be estsblished and for that purpose the conduct of the accused shall be established. For such conduct the direct and circumstantial evidences in the case have to be established. Therefore here the various relevant fact in the cases as per Indian evidence act shall be examined. One's the causation is established then only the mens rea will be examined.

With the intention of causing death (Part I)

Intention means desire to produce the consequences. Whenever intention to cause death has to be examined it has to be seen that the accused done the act with the greater degree of certainity so as to provide the extra assurance to himself that the consequence is produce with certainity. A mere causal approach will not be taken by the accused if he has intention to cause death. The intention is to be examined by examining the conduct of the person i.e., how did he do the act. Basically to examined intention test is of a reasonable person. Intention to cause death can be with bodily injury or without bodily injury. Whenever we say that there is intention to cause death then there is direct correlation between the intention of the accused and the causation of the death.

Dibia v. State of UP

In the case the supreme court held that, causing serious injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased with the dangerous weapon must necessarily, lead to inference that the accused intended to kill. An intention also includes foresight of certainty. A consequence is deemed to be intended thought. It is desired when it is foreseen as substantially certain.[2]

With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death (Part II)

In second part the intention directly correlate not with death but with bodily injury and whatever bodily injury has been caused is such as is likely to cause death. In the second part the mind of the accused has to be examined in reference to the bodily injury that has been caused i.e., the intention of the accused correlated directly with the bodily injury and not with death. Thereafter the examination whether the bodily injury was likely to cause death has to be examined not in reference to the mind of ther accused rather it has to be objective examination(independent) and the question will be asked to the doctor whether such bodily injury is likely to cause death.

In section 100 part II, there are two dimension. The first dimension is a subjective test i.e., the examination is that of the mind of the accused as to whether he had the intention to cause that particular bodily injury or not. Here the mind of the accused regarding that intention has to be examined.

In the part II, the test is an objective test regarding the nature of the bodily injury as to whether that particular bodily injury is likely to cause death or not. And here the test is objective it is not to be examined whether the accused intented or knew it to be likely to cause death rather objectively a medical expert has to give his opinion whether such injury is likely too cause dearh.

Requirement for Section 100 Part II

1. Death caused by bodily injury
2. Bodily injury intended to be caused
3. Intention to cause death is not proved
4. Bodily injury is objectively likely to cause death

Example:

There is a person A who has a tumor in his stomach. Another person B knows about the tumor and delivers a fist blow to A. In this example, Section 100 Part II is proved because there is an intention to cause bodily injury, and a doctor's opinion will confirm that this act could likely cause death.

Knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death (Part III)

Knowledge is a lesser degree than intention. Under Section 100 Part III, the knowledge of the likelihood of causing death must be proved, and knowledge is something that can be presumed. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of their acts. For example, where the accused struck the abdomen of B with such violence that it caused a fracture of two ribs and a rupture of the spleen, leading to B's death, the court held that the accused knew that the abdomen is a delicate and vulnerable part of the body and, therefore, should be presumed to have acted with the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death.

Interpretation of Section 101 BNS

Section 101

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder if:

1. The act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or
2. The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death; or
3. The act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury, and the bodily injury intended is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
4. The person committing the act knows it is imminently dangerous and must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits the act without any excuse for incurring such risk.

Exceptions to Section 100

If any of the five exceptions to Section 100 apply, then culpable homicide will not be considered murder. Thus, for culpable homicide to amount to murder, one of the subsequent clauses must apply, and none of the exceptions to Section 100 should apply.

Culpable Homicide is Murder

The phrase "culpable homicide is murder" signifies that for an offense to be considered murder, it must first qualify as culpable homicide. This implies that culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species.

Example:

LL.B is the genus, and a judicial officer is the species.

Intentional Causation of Death (Section 100(a))

There is no difference between Section 100 Part I and Section 300(a). The moment intentional causation of death falls under Section 100 Part I, it automatically falls under Section 300(a). Both sections use the phrase "with the intention of causing death," meaning their implications are the same. Every intentional causation of death falls under murder (Section 101(a)). The phrase "culpable homicide is murder if" in Section 101 indicates that for murder to exist, the act must first constitute culpable homicide. This aligns with the maxim "culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species." Therefore, unless an act falls under Section 100 Part I, it will not fall under Section 101.

Intention to Cause Bodily Injury Likely to Cause Death

Both Section 100 Part II and Section 101(b) share the element of an intention to cause a specific bodily injury that is likely to result in death. However, Section 101(b) includes an additional requirement: the accused must have specific knowledge that the injury is likely to cause the victim's death.

For example:
If the victim has swollen spleen and the accused knows about the swollen spleen then if the accused hit there and the victim died then for the purpose of section 100 part II the accused has the intention to cause that internal and external injury and as per the doctor opinion the said injury is likely to cause death. These two element is to be found in section 300(b), the element is to be found in section 101(b), the additional element required for the section 100(b) is that the offender has the specific knowledge about the swollen spleen and therefore he has the specific knowledge that the said injury is likely to cause death.

If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
Essential of section 101(c) are:

1. Intention of causing bodily injury , and it has to be subjective examination means mind of the accused is examined.
2. The intended bodiy injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Sufficiency is to be examined objectively that is doctor's opinion is to be taken.

The third clause of section 101 speaks of an intention to cause bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Sufficiency is the high probability of injury to cause death. Sufficiency is the high probability of death, depending upon the nature of weapon used, on the part of the body where the injury is inflicted or both. If the injury is not such as would cause death i.e. if the probability is not so high the offence will not fall under section 100 or even a lesser offence.

• The third clause of section 101 speaks of an intention to cause bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Sufficiency is the high probability of injury to cause death.
• Sufficiency is the high probability of death, depending upon:
  • The nature of the weapon used
  • The part of the body where the injury is inflicted
  • Or both
• If the injury is not such as would cause death, i.e., if the probability is not so high, the offence will not fall under section 100 or even a lesser offence.

Virsa Singh V. State of Punjab (1958) SC

• The court held that for section 100(c):
  • Firstly, it has to be proved that the bodily injury found on the body of the victim was actually intended by the accused.
  • Once that is proved, then it has to be examined whether the said intended bodily injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
  • This sufficiency has to be examined objectively, i.e., the medical opinion has to be taken.
  • If it is found to be sufficient, then both parts of section 100(c) are fulfilled, and hence, murder is proved under section 100(c).
  • The first part is a subjective test, and the latter part is an objective test.
     
• Section 100(c) can be divided into three parts:
  • Intention to cause bodily injury to any person
  • The bodily injury is intended to be inflicted
  • Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death

Emperor v. Dhirajia (1940) Allahabad H.C

• The husband was of a cruel nature.
• One day, when he was eating, his wife came with a baby in her lap and told him that she wanted to go to her parents' home.
• The husband got angry and started chasing his wife to beat her.
• Out of panic, she did not find any place to hide, so she jumped into the well along with the child.
• In this course, the child died, and the wife was prosecuted for the child's death.
• The court held that she is liable under section 100 part III but not under section 101(d) because she had an excuse in this case.

Similarities and Differences between Section 100 and Section 101

• Culpable homicide is murder.
• Culpable homicide is the gateway to murder.
• Murder is the aggravated form of culpable homicide.
• Culpable homicide gets converted into murder.
• To prove murder, you first have to prove culpable homicide.
• Culpable Homicide + Additional elements mentioned under section 101 = Murder.
• All murder is culpable homicide, but not all culpable homicide is murder.

State of Andhra Pradesh V. Punnayya (1977) SC

• Justice Sarkaria laid down practical guidelines to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder:
• Whenever the court faces the question of whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder, the following must be done:
  • Firstly, check whether the accused has done an act that caused the death of another.
  • Secondly, consider whether the act amounts to culpable homicide under section 100.
  • Once culpable homicide is proved, check the part under which it has been proved.
  • Thereafter, look for the corresponding clause under section 101.
  • If the additional element mentioned under the corresponding clause of section 101 is present, then culpable homicide gets converted into murder.
  • If not, it remains culpable homicide.

Genus and species relationship between sec.100 and 101
Culpable Homicide is the genus and murder is species. Culpable Homicide is a broader category in which the actus reus is death and mens rea is as mentioned in 3 parts of section 100. In case of murder also the actus reus is death and mens rea is defined under the four paras of section 101. For any case to be proved as murder it has to firstly prove that it is a case of culpable homicide under section 100 and this is express by provided under section 101 wherein it states that culpable homicide is murder.

The prosecution will firstly have to prove that case falls under any of the 3 parts of section 100, Once any part of section 100 is proved then the court will look into the corresponding clause under section 101. To convert culpable homicide into murder the prosecution will have to prove the additional element mentioned under section 101. If the additional element mentioned under any of the four clauses of section 101 is proved than culpable homicide will get converted into murder. This is the genus and species relationship which states that every murder is culpable homicide but every culpable homicide is not murder.

Each and every part of section 100 corresponds with a clause of section 101. Depending upon the part under which culpable homicide have been proved murder would be looked into. If section part I has been proved then section 101(a) will be looked into. If section 100 part II has been proved then section 100(b) will be looked into or 100(c).If section 100 part III has been proved then section 101(d) will be looked into. Thus if the additional element mentioned under corresponding clause of section 101 is present then culpable homicide will get converted into murder.
Case Laws

Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., (2012)
Sections 299 and 300 of the Code deal with the definition of "culpable homicide" and "murder", respectively. In terms of Section 299, "culpable homicide" is described as an act of causing death:

1. with the intention of causing death, or
2. with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
3. with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death.

As is clear from a reading of this provision, the former part of it emphasizes on the expression "intention" while the latter upon "knowledge".
Both these are positive mental attitudes, however, of different degrees. The mental element in "culpable homicide", that is, the mental attitude towards the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. Once an offence is caused in any of the three stated manners noted above, it would be "culpable homicide". Section 300, however, deals with "murder" although there is no clear definition of "murder" in Section 300 of the Code. As has been repeatedly held by this Court, "culpable homicide" is the genus and "murder" is its species and all "murders" are "culpable homicides" but all "culpable homicides" are not "murders".[6]

Veeran v. State of M.P., (2011)
In the instant case, there has been death of Daddu caused on account of injuries by the aforementioned accused. The two courts below have convicted the accused for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. In a plethora of cases, this Court has held that under the scheme of IPC, "culpable homicide" is the genus and "murder" its species wherein all "murder" is "culpable homicide" but all "culpable homicide" is not "murder". Exceptions 1 to 5 to Section 300 IPC indicate the circumstances where "culpable homicide" is not "murder".[7]

Jagriti Devi v. State of H.P., (2009)
Section 300 IPC, however, deals with murder although there is no clear definition of murder provided in Section 300 IPC. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that culpable homicide is the genus and murder is species and that all murders are culpable homicide but not vice versa.[8]

Conclusion
Under the framework of criminal law, the legal statement "culpable homicide as the genus and murder as its species" makes a distinction between two types of unlawful killing. According to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), culpable homicide is the illegal killing of a person knowing that the conduct may result in death or serious injury but not intending to cause death. A more serious kind of culpable homicide, murder is defined by Section 300 of the IPC as having the intent to kill or cause bodily harm that is likely to result in death. Based on mens rea, or purpose or understanding, this distinction between genus and species aids in classifying homicide into varying degrees.

The mens rea principle lies at the core of this distinction. Culpable homicide occurs when someone acts in a way that may be expected to cause death even if they may not have the specific intent to murder. The presence of specific intent—where the offender has the willful intention to cause death or serious bodily harm—is the primary distinction with murder. Consequently, not all culpable homicides are murder, even if all murders are culpable homicides.

Understanding the hierarchy of homicide laws is aided by the genus-species link. All unlawful killings that do not necessarily show premeditation or malice aforethought are included in the broader concept of culpable homicide. Murder, on the other hand, is a more specific offense that calls for a higher level of criminal intent. As a result, culpable homicide serves as a catch-all phrase for different levels of illegal kills, with murder serving as a particular subcategory that is seen more morally repugnant because of its deliberate nature.

Bibliography
Books

• P.S.A. Pillai's, Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, 15th edn., 2023.
• K. D. Gaur, Textbook on Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Lexis Nexis 9th edn., 2024.
• Sarkar on Indian Penal Code, 1860 Law of Crimes, Kamal Law House, 4th edn., 2022 (Vol. 1 & 2).

Websites

• www.student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Indian-Penal-Code/chapter8.htm
• www. https://devgan.in/bns/section/101/
• https://www.prashantkanha.com/section-101-of-bhartiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023-bns-equivalent-ipc-section/

End-Notes

• https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf last visited on March 25, 2025.
• www. http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Indian-Penal-Code/chapter8.htm last visited on March 25, 2025.
• https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf last visited on March 25, 2025.
• AIR 1958 SUPREME COURT 465.
• AIR 1940 ALLAHABAD 486.
• AIR 2012 8 SCC 289.
• AIR 2011 11 SCC 367.
• AIR 2009 14 SCC 771.