The question has engaged attention since the enactment of IPC. The use of the term ‘likely’ in several places in respect of ‘culpable homicide’, highlights the element of uncertainty. Section 300, which defines ‘murder’, however refrains from use of the term ‘likely’. This reveals absence of ambiguity left. The accused is for sure, his act will definitely cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between ‘culpable homicide’ and ‘murder’ as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ involved in both the crimes. This difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide variance of degree of ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ among both the crimes. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382 notes the important distinction between the provisions, and their differing, but subtle distinction.

Also see, Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444.

– Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Mohd. Rafiq v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 2021].

Learned Advocate was justified in placing reliance on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465. “It is not necessary to enquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether he intended to penetrate the liver or the kidneys or the heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could never be convicted. It is broad-based and simple and based on common sense: the kind of enquiry, “twelve good men and true” could readily appreciate and understand.”

– Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Subhash v. State of Karnataka, [Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2012] decided 10.04.2024.