A crime is committing for greed, anger, jealously, revenge, or pride. Some people decide to commit a crime and carefully plan everything in advance to increase gain and decrease risk. These people are making choices about their behavior; some even consider a life of crime better than a regular job—believing crime brings in greater rewards, admiration, and excitement at least until they are caught. Others get an adrenaline rush when successfully carrying out a dangerous crime. Others commit crimes on impulse, out of rage or fear.

The desire for material gain (money or expensive belongings) leads to property crimes such as robberies, burglaries, white-collar crimes, and auto thefts. The desire for control, revenge, or power leads to violent crimes such as murders, assaults, and rapes. These violent crimes usually occur on impulse or the spur of the moment when emotions run high. Property crimes are usually planned in advance.

However, There are various crime held in the world. But the most dreadful and terrible crime is:-

  • Offences against human body
  • Offences against human life

It may be divided into two parts-

  • Murder
  • Culpable homicide.

Both are the crimes against human or life of the person. Both crimes are seized the rights to life .now the description is given below:-


Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Murder is perhaps the single most serious criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing, a person who is convicted of murder may be sentenced to many years in prison, a prison sentence with no possibility of Parole, or death.

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice from other killing to a level of intent or recklessness that the separated murder from other killing and warranted stiffer punishment.

Murder is the act of killing another human being with malice, traditionally called “malice aforethought.” Malice is defined as the intent to kill or to inflict bodily injury, either express or implied. If a deadly weapon is used, intent to kill will necessarily be implied by a court of law. The presumption is that if the assailant brought a deadly weapon with him/her there was an intent to use the weapon. If the assailant picked up a weapon at the scene of the crime in an act of defense or in a provoked fit of rage, there might not be malice. See homicide and manslaughter.


“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.”

“The person who causes the death of a human being  means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

“A person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

“A person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to affect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.”

“Murder is the unlawful killing, by any person of sound memory and discretion, of any person under the King’s peace, with malice aforethought either expresses or implied by law.

“This malice aforethought which distinguishes murder from other species of homicide is not limited to particular ill will against the person slain, but means that the fact has been attended with such circumstances as are the ordinary symptoms of a wicked, depraved and malignant spirit; a heart regardless of social duty and deliberately bent upon mischief.” “And if one intends to do another felony, and undesignedly kills a man, this is also murder.

“Thus, if one shoots at A and misses him, but kills B., this is murder, because of the previous felonious intent, which the law transfers from one to the other.”

“If a person, whilst doing or attempting to do another act, undesignedly kills a man — if the act intended or attempted were a felony, the killing is murder; if unlawful, but not amounting to felony, the killing is manslaughter.”


Except in the cases hereinafter except, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death,

If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused,

If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,

If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause of death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.


  • A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in the consequence. A commits murder.
  • A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club- wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.
  • A, knowing that Z is laboring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is laboring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
  • A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.


Under section 302 of The Penal Code 1860 explain the punishment of murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.


Hawkins defines it to be the willful killing of any subject whatever, with malice aforethought, whether the person slain shall be an Englishman or a foreigner.

Russell says, murder is the killing of any person under the king’s peace, with malice prepense or aforethought, either express or implied by law.

Sir Edward Coke defines or rather describes this offence to be, “when a person of sound mind and discretion, unlawfully killed any reasonable creature in being, and under the king’s peace, with malice aforethought either express or implied.”

According to Coke’s definition there must be 1st Sound mind and memory in the agent. By this is understood there must be a will, and legal discretion. 2. An actual killing, but it is not necessary that it should be caused by direct violence; it is sufficient if the acts done apparently endanger. Life, and eventually fatal the party killed must have been a reasonable being, alive and in the king’s peace.


England and Wales

In English law, the definition of murder is:

The unlawful killing of a human being, under the Queen’s Peace, with “malice aforethought”.

Contrast this with the original definition by Sir Edward Coke CJ in 1597 of:

Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King’s peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same.


Murder is defined in the New South Wales (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 as follows:

Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime…

Under NSW law, the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 20 years, or 25 years for the murder of a child under the age of 18 or of a police officer or public official. Attempted murder carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. Note that in order to be guilty of murder under the NSW Crimes Act, intent to cause grievous bodily harm is enough to secure a conviction for murder, as is felony murder (constructive murder in Australia).

There is a statutory defence of provocation in NSW law; if provocation is proven and the person would have otherwise been convicted of murder, directs the jury to find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.


In Canada, murder is classified as either first or second degree.

  1. First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, or (8) while committing intimidation.
  2. Second degree murder is all murder which is not first degree murder. It could be “spur of the moment”.


The mandatory sentence for any adult (or youth sentenced as an adult) convicted of murder in Canada is a life sentence, with various time periods before a person may apply for parole. The ability to apply for parole does not mean parole is granted.

Offence/circumstances Parole ineligibility period
Second degree murder 10–25 years
Second degree murder by an offender previously convicted of murder 25 years
Second degree murder (16 or 17 years old at time of the offence) 7 years
First degree murder 25 years
First degree murder (16 or 17 years old at time of the offence) 10 years
First/second degree murder (14 or 15 years old at time of the offence) 5–7 years


The Chinese Penalty Law as amended in 1997, provides for a penalty of death, or imprisonment for life or no less than 10 years, for “killing with intent.” However, the penalty for “minor killing with intent” is imprisonment for no less than 3 years. In practice, “killing with indignation” (killing someone who is obviously very harmful to the society) and killings committed in excessive defense are considered “minor.”


In Denmark manddrab (manslaughter) is the term used by the Danish penalty law to describe the act of intentionally killing another person. No distinction between manslaughter and murder exists. The penalty goes from a minimum of five years (six years in the case of regicide) to imprisonment for life.


In Finland, murder is defined as homicide with at least one of four aggravating factors:

  1. Deliberate intent
  2. Exceptional brutality or cruelty
  3. Significantly endangering public safety
  4. Committed against a public official engaged in enforcing the law.

Further, the offense considered as a whole must be aggravated. A murder doesn’t expire.

The only possible punishment for murder is life imprisonment. Typically, the prisoner will be pardoned by the Helsinki Court of Appeals after serving 12 to 14 years of the sentence, but this is not automatic. The President can also give pardon, and previously this used to be the only possibility.

Hong Kong-

The definition of murder is identical to that in England and Wales.

The “year and a day” rule has also been abolished. Contrary to the position in England and Wales, there is no time limit beyond which the consent of the Secretary of Justice would be required.

The retention of intention to cause grievous bodily harm as a form of “malice aforethought” (the other form being the intention to kill) was challenged in the case HKSAR v Lau Cheong as being both insufficient in common law and in contrary to the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights. The five judges, sitting on the Court of Final Appeal, unanimously rejected both arguments.

Murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, except in relation to offenders under the age of 18 at the time of the murder, who are subject to a discretionary sentence.] Attempted Murder

The Offences Against the Person Ordinance prescribes a number of specific types of attempted murder, including by using poison, wounding another (§ 10), by destroying or damaging building (§ 11), setting fire to or casting away ship (§ 12) and attempting to shoot or drown (§ 13), which are all punishable by life imprisonment.

Attempted murder by other means not specified in the statute (§ 14) shall be liable to imprisonment for life.


Israel had 173 murders in 2004, compared to 147 murders in 2000.[68] Two particular characteristics of homicide in Israel are the terrorist attacks and (so called) honor killings.

There are five types of homicide in Israel:

  1. Murder – The premeditated killing of a person, or the intentional killing of a person whilst committing, preparing for, or escaping from any crime, is murder. The mandatory punishment for this crime is life imprisonment. Life is usually commuted (clemency from the President) to 30 years from which a third can be deducted by the parole board for good behavior. Arab terrorists are not usually granted pardons or parole other than as part of deals struck with Arab terrorist organizations or foreign governments and in exchange for captured Israelis or their corpses.
  2. Reduced sentence murder – If the murderer did not fully understand his actions because of mental defect (but not legal insanity or imbecility), or in circumstances close to self-defense, necessity or duress or where the murderer suffered from serious mental distress because of long-term abuse, the court can give a sentence of less than life. This is a new addition to the Israeli penal code and has been rarely used.


In India according to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Murder is defined as follows

Murder.–Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- 167 2ndly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. or- 3rdly.-If it 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, or- 4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.


According to the Romanian Penal Code, a person can face a penalty ranging from 10 to 25 years or life imprisonment for murder. (There are also mandatory restrictions of some constitutional rights for all types of murder.)


  • Murder – (3rd degree)(10 to 20 years) Killing a person when no aggravating circumstances apply.
  • Qualified murder (2nd degree)(15 to 25 years). Aggravating circumstances:
  1. a) with premeditation
  2. b) concerning a material interest
  3. c) against spouse or close relative
  4. d) taking advantage of victim’s impossibility of self-defense
  5. e) when putting in danger the lives of multiple persons
  6. f) concerning job attributions of the victim
  7. g) for facilitating or hiding another crime
  8. h) in public
  • Extremely grave murder (1st degree) (15 to 25 years or life imprisonment). Aggravating circumstances:
  1. a) Committed in a cruel way
  2. b) Against two or more persons
  3. c) By a person who had already committed a murder
  4. d) In order to hide a robbery
  5. e) Against a pregnant woman
  6. f) Against a policeman, gendarme, magistrate or soldier (in connection with their public duties)

Negligent or accidental murder (1 to 5 years in simple form). Aggravating circumstances:

  1. a) Caused by a professional in connection with his job for not respecting the legal dispositions (2 to 7 years)
  2. b) By a vehicle driver with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above legal limits or in a drunk state (5 to 15 years)
  3. c) By a professional in a drunk state – in connection with his job duties (5 to 15 years)
  4. d) When causing the death of two or more persons (5 to 15 years)

Infanticide (2 to 7 years).


According to the modern Russian Criminal Code, only intentional killing of another human considered as a murder following types of murder are defined:

  • Murder per se (article 105 of Criminal Code):
  • Common corpus delicti (with no aggravating circumstances listed below). Punished with a sentence between 6 and 15 years
  • Qualified corpus delicti. Punished with a sentence between 8 and 20 years, or life, or death penalty. Aggravating circumstances:
  1. a) Against two or more persons;
  2. b) Against person on public duty or their relatives;
  3. c) Killing of hostage, kidnapped or helpless person;
  4. d) Killing of pregnant;
  5. e) Committed in a cruel way;
  6. f) Committed in a socially dangerous way;
  7. g) Motivated by a blood feud (vendetta);
  8. h) Committed by a group;
  9. i) For a profit, including contract killing, or connected with a robbery or racket;
  10. j) With a rowdy motive;
  11. k) To cover or secure another crime,
  12. l) Connected with a rape or sexual assault;
  13. m) Hate crime;
  14. n) With the view to use organs or tissues of victim.
  • Privileged types of murder:
  • Of newborn child by mother (article 106 of Criminal Code), punished with a sentence up to 5 years.
  • In affect state (art. 107), up to 3 years (up to 5 years for multiple killing).
  • Exceeding reasonable level of self defense (art. 108), up to 2 years.

 United States

Murder is the unlawful killing of human being with malice aforethought. Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Life sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months (29 years one month) and a median of 480 months (40 years). However, some states’ sentencing contemplate a full life’s confinement, whence the sentence of confinement is not deemed fulfilled while the convicted person lives; and the only way to fulfill the sentence (and thereby obtain release from confinement) is by the individuals death. These sentences are termed natural life and/or life without the possibility of parole.


Before the famous case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972, most states distinguished two degrees of murder. While the rules differed by state, a reasonably common scheme was that of Pennsylvania, passed in 1794: “Murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree (or capital murder in some states that carry the death penalty); and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree.” “Murder one”, as the term was popularized by novels and television, carried a penalty of death, or life in prison, while the penalty for “murder two” was generally around 80 years in prison. After the Supreme Court placed new requirements on the imposition of the death penalty, most states adopted one of two schemes. In both, third degree murder became the catch-all, while first degree murder was split. The difference was whether some or all first degree murders should be eligible for the most serious penalty (generally death, but sometimes life in prison without the possibility of parole).

  • The first scheme, used by Pennsylvania and the most common among other states:
  1. First Degree Murder: An intentional killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated action.
  2. Second Degree Murder: Homicide committed by an individual engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
  3. Third Degree Murder: Any other murder (e.g. when the intent was not to kill, but to harm the victim).
  • The second scheme, used by New York among other states, as well as the Model Penal Code:
  1. First Degree Murder: Murder involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders. Note that a “regular” premeditated murder, absent such special circumstances, is not a first-degree murder; murders by poison or “lying in wait” are not per se first-degree murders. First degree murder is pre-meditated. However, the New York Court of Appeals struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional in the case of People v. LaValle, because of the statute’s direction on how the jury was to be instructed in case of deadlock in the penalty phase.
  2. Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances.

Schemes similar to Pennsylvania’s are used in California and Massachusetts. A scheme similar to New York’s is used in Texas, but first degree murder is called “capital murder”.

Other states use the term “capital murder” for those offenses that merit death, and the term is often used even in states whose statutes do not include the term. As of 2009, 35 states and the federal government have laws allowing capital punishment for certain murders and related crimes (such as treason, terrorism, and espionage). The penalty is rarely asked for and more rarely imposed, but it has generated tremendous public debate. See also capital punishment and capital punishment in the United States.

In death penalty-states with the New-York scheme, first degree murder itself is eligible for the death penalty. In death penalty-states with the Pennsylvania scheme, first-degree murder must involve an additional aggravating factor for being eligible for the death penalty.


Offense Mandatory sentencing
Second degree murder Imprisonment for life or any term
Second degree murder by an inmate, even escaped, serving a life sentence Life imprisonment
First degree murder Death or life imprisonment


  1. Planned murder or First Degree Murder (overlagt drap) is a murder committed with the intention of taking the life of another, by a person fully sane and aware of what he or she is doing, and having planned the act of murder ahead. Planned murder is punished with up to 21 years of imprisonment. Under special circumstances, like a murder of severe cruelty, or if there is reason to believe the offender may commit murder again, additional years of imprisonment can be given. This usually takes place at a court hearing near the end of the sentence.
  2. Intentional murder or Second Degree Murder (forsettlig drap) is a murder committed with the intention of taking the life of another, by a person fully sane and aware of what he or she is doing, without the act of murder having been planned ahead. Murder of passion usually falls into this category. Intentional murder is punished by 6 to 12 years of imprisonment.
  3. Murder as a result of neglect or manslaughter (uaktsomt drap) is defined as a case where someone has been killed as a result of the offenders neglect. For example, a car driver may be convicted for murder if someone is killed as a result of his or her careless driving. Murder as a result of neglect is punishable by 3 to 6 years, depending on the circumstances.

Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies


Joy Rahman arrested for murder in Bangladesh

Rahman served eight years of a life sentence following a 1994 conviction for a murder in Sätra, south of Stockholm. Sweden’s Supreme Court later granted him a new trial and he was acquitted inMay of 2002. Rahman is being held in Gopalgonj, a few hours by car from the Bangladeshicapital of Dahka. “He has let it be known that he has made contact with the Swedish Embassy, which has asked the court for permission to meet him. As soon as we’ve been granted approval, we’ll go there,” said Swedish Foreign Ministry spokespersonAnders Jörle to the TT news agency. The Foreign Ministry’s role under such circumstances is to ensure the Swedish citizens are handled appropriately and have access to an attorney who can safeguard their interests. According to the newspaper Aftonbladet, Rahman and three other men are suspected of murdering the treasurer of Rahman’s aid organization three years ago. Rahman built up the charity using funds from the record-large damages settlement he received from the Swedish state after he was freed by the Supreme Court. Peter Althin, who represented Rahman in his retrial, is now trying to get information about what has happened to his former client.
“The situation is unclear and I don’t really know anything about the new case. It’s just too early to say whether I will travel down to Bangladesh and help him there,” said Althin.

Althin was heavily engaged in Rahman’s case in Sweden. “I know him very well so I’m very interested in following how these new eventsunfold,” said Althin. Rahman, who worked as a personal-care aid, was sentenced to life in prison in 1994 for the murder of a 72-year-old woman in Sätra. The was one of the public sector home care agency’s patients. She had been strangled with a noose and the murderer then tried to burn the body, but the flames later petered out. The Supreme Court granted Rahman a retrial in 2002 and he was exonerated by the Stockholm Court of Appeals following a new hearing.

Having been deprived of his liberty for eight years, he was awarded 10.2 million kronor ($1.7 million at current exchange rates). At the time, it was the largest damages claim ever awarded in Sweden. Rahman used a large part of the money to build up the Joy Rahman Welfare Foundation, which provides healthcare and micro-loans to the poor in Rahman’s birthplace of Gopalgonj.

Woman ordered husband to kill daughter

The little girl was killed by her father in a forest near the town of Värnamo seven years ago. He initially claimed that she drowned, but a postmortem found that her back had been broken.

The father, then 24, pleaded not guilty to the murder, but was convicted and sent to a secure psychiatric hospital, where he remains today.

Police suspected at the time that the girl’s stepmother was involved in the killing, but she was never charged due to lack of evidence. The case was reopened in the spring, however, after the father claimed that his wife ordered him to kill his daughter. The woman allegedly believed that her stepdaughter was hampering her relationship with her husband.
According to court documents, the woman had pushed her husband consistently over a one year period to kill his daughter. Jönköping District Court said the father “would never have killed his daughter if [his wife] hadn’t challenged him to do so.”

The woman was found guilty of solicitation to murder. The court’s sentence of ten years was less than the prosecution had wanted – they had demanded she serve life behind bars. She was also ordered to pay almost 200,000 kronor in damages to the girl’s mother.
She has a previous conviction for serious assault, for which she was jailed for 18 months in 2008. The woman has consistently contested the charges against her. Her lawyer, Leif Silbersky, said she would appeal. The court had given far too much credence to the father’s account, he said. Only five people have been convicted of solicitation to murder in Sweden between 1990 and 2009. In 90 percent of the 2,000 murder cases since 1990 the murderer has acted alone. “It is very unusual to plan and recruit accomplices. Violent crimes often happen on the spur of the moment. It is possible that there are unsolved murders in the criminal underworld and honour killings where people are guilty of soliciting, but it is hard to prove,” said Mikael Ryning at the University of Central Sweden.

Palash murder case against 8 BCL men

Sylhet, July 14 ( — A case has been filed over the killing of Udayendu Palash, a third-year student of Sylhet MC College.  Palash’s father Dhiresh Singha, a former army officer, lodged the case with Kotwali Police Station on Wednesday night.  Officer-in-charge Narayan Datta said eight activists of Bangladesh Chhatra League, student front of ruling Awami League, of the college and some other unidentified persons have been accused in the case of the murder. The BCL men are Fazlur Rahman Jasim, Delwar Hossain, Shipon Khan, Mustafiz Rauf, Giasuddin, Sanjay Kumar Chowdhury, Shahidul Haque and Russell Ahmed.  Palash was critically injured in an attack by some assailants in the city’s Tilagarh area on July 12. He died on way to hospital.
Meanwhile, Sylhet city unit of BCL expelled its 12 activists of MC College and Sylhet Government College following the central committee’s instructions, a press release signed by Habibur Rahman Selim, president of Sylhet city unit, said. The expelled are its Sylhet Government College unit convenor Debangshu Das Mithu, MC College unit general secretary Pankaj Purakayastha, Mustafizur Rahman, Jainal Abedin Diamond, Isa Alam, Manjur Ahmed, Belal Uddin, Abdur Rahim Ripon, Delwar Hossain, Ritu Dev, Rumel Ahmed and Jasimuddin. (

Varsity student beaten to death allegedly by DB police

A university student was allegedly beaten to death under the custody of Detective Branch of Police yesterday evening after he was picked up from city’s Siddheshwari area in the afternoon. Dhaka Medical College Hospital officials identified the youth as Shamim Reza, aged about 24. Relatives said he was a BBA student at a private university. A neighbour said his nickname was Rubel. Shamim was pronounced dead at the emergency section of DMCH by doctors at 9-45 p.m. He was brought by a group of plainclothesmen who identified themselves as members of the dB Witnesses said the healthy young man had only a pair of jeans, without shoes and shirts. A hospital official said the dead body was not registered. The doctors and other witnesses said there were no injury marks on the body. “We cannot say anything about the cause of the death before autopsy,” said a doctor. A nurse added that the young man looked as if he was in a slumber. A DMCH source quoting a relative said Shamim was picked up by a group of lainclothesmen from in front of his house on Siddeswari Road at 4-30 p.m. They dragged him inside a vehicle, kicking and punching him indiscriminately. Neighbours told The Daily Star that Shamim was brought back to his neighbourhood at around 7:30 PM and beaten up in public. They claimed that some 100-150 people, including Shamim’s relatives, gathered and tried to persuade police not to beat whom they called an “innocent boy”. The witnesses also said police were asking Shamim to say that he had illegal arms in his possession. Reached over telephone, dB officials at Minto Road declined to give any detail other than that one Shamim had been taken to their office. Three plainclothesmen who took the lifeless body of the young man to the DMCH told the doctors that his details would be given by others who, they said, were on way to hospital. But “the others” did not come and they wanted to take the body away from the hospital. The on-duty DMCH officials decided to keep the body at the dead room of the hospital under lock and key, hospital sources said. At 12:15am, Daily Star reporters saw a number of plainclothes loitering around the DMCH and a number of police vans and unmarked vehicles parked in front of the emergency gate. Late last night, dB officials were allegedly trying to “reach a compromise” with Shamim’s family. Neighbours quoted family members to say that some police officials were using strong languages at Ramna police station where they went to lodge a complaint. dB Assistant Commissioner Akram Hossain and Hayatul Islam Thakur were present there. Thakur was the one who picked up Shamim. (The Daily Star: 1998/07/24)

Sharmin Murder Case:

The Sharmin murder case is one of the most notorious criminal cases in the history of Bangladesh. Munir Hussain, a wealthy industrialist, killed his wife Sharmin Rima on April 9, 1989 as the culmination of a long-running affair with his mistress Hosne Ara Khuku, a middle-aged woman and the wife of a disabled man. Both Munir and Sharmin came from prominent families — Munir was the son of Dr. Meherunnessa, a renowned physician, while Sharmin was the daughter of an intellectual who had been martyred in the Bangladesh Liberation War[1]  The murder investigation and the subsequent trial received blanket coverage in the press. Every new revelation was greeted with dramatic headlines, and the details of the case kept the entire nation gripped for months. Indeed, it may be argued that the Sharmin murder case was the most sensational criminal trial in contemporary Bangladeshi history. The trial concluded on 21 May 1990. Munir and Khuku were both found guilty, and both were condemned to death. Two years later, in July 1992, an appellate court overturned Khuku’s sentence and acquitted her of all charges. Munir’s death sentence was upheld in the face of successive legal appeals. On 3rd and mercy petitions. He was hanged on either July 3, 1993 or July 27, 1993.

 Ripon to be quizzed in Polash murder case

A judicial magistrate’s court in Sylhet yesterday granted two-day remand for Chhatra League leader Abdur Rahim Ripon for quizzing in the case for killing Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) activist Udayendu Singha Polash. Quizzing is likely to start today (Tuesday), said investigation officer of the case, Sub Inspector Abdur Rahim. Police on Friday arrested Ripon, president of recently dissolved MC College hostel Chhatra League unit, at a room in the hostel as a suspect in the murder case. Intra-party rivals stabbed to death BCL activist Udayendu Singha Polash, 22, also an honours 3rd year Mathematics student of Sylhet MC College, at Shaplabag in Sylhet city on July 12 afternoon. On July 14, Bireshwar Chandra Sinha, father of deceased Polash, filed a murder case with Sylhet Kotwali PS accusing 14 activists of BCL MC College unit including eight named and six unnamed ones. The named ones are Fazlur Rahman Jashim, Md Delwar Hossain, Shipon Khan alias Kala Shipon, Shahidul Haque, Russel Ahmed, Gias uddin, Mostafizur Rahman, Sanjay Kumar Chowdhury. Police earlier picked up Ayub Ali, a friend of the deceased, about two hours after the killing. After primary interrogation, he was sent to the jail through magistrate’s court July 13 under Section 54 as a suspect in the incident, police said. The central committee dissolved the unit, along with the Sylhet district, city and college units of the BCL, on July 14 and expelled six of the college unit and 12 of the district and city units for their complicity with unwanted activities. Ripon is one of them.

In Commonwealth v. LaCava, 783 N.E.2d 812 (Mass. 2003), the defendant, Thomas N. LaCava, was convicted of the deliberate, premeditated murder of his wife. LaCava admitted to the shooting and the killing, but he claimed that due to his diminished mental capacity, he could not form the requisite malice when he committed the killing, so as to be convicted of first degree murder. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that Massachusetts law permits psychiatric evidence to attack the premeditation aspect of murder. However, the judge’s instructions to the jury regarding the definition of murder was sufficient to render the error harmless, according to the court. Many states use the California definition of implied malice to describe an unintentional killing that is charged as murder because the defendant intended to do serious bodily injury, or acted with extreme recklessness. For example, if an aggressor punches a victim in the nose, intending only to injure the victim’s face, the aggressor may be charged with murder if the victim dies from the blow. The infliction of serious bodily injury becomes the equivalent of an intent to kill when the victim dies. Although the aggressor in such a case did not have the express desire to kill the victim, he or she would not be charged with assault, but with murder. To understand why, it is helpful to consider the alternative: When a person dies at the hands of an aggressor, it does not sit well with the public conscience to preclude a murder charge simply because the aggressor intended only to do serious bodily injury. Some murders involving extreme recklessness on the part of the defendant cause extreme public outrage.

In People v. Dellinger, 783 P.2d 200 (Cal. 1989), the defendant, Leland Dellinger, was found guilty of the murder of his two-yearold stepdaughter. The primary cause of the child’s death was a fractured skull caused by trauma to the head. However, other evidence showed that the child had large quantities of cocaine in her system when she died. Moreover, her mother discovered that the defendant had fed the child wine through a baby bottle. Due to the defendant’s “wanton disregard for life,” the verdict of murder was proper, according to the California Supreme Court. A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person also may be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory. Depraved-heart murder refers to a killing that results from gross negligence. For example, suppose that a man is practicing shooting his gun in his backyard, located in a suburban area. If the man accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory, if gross Negligence is proven.

In   Turner v. State, 796 So. 2d 998 (Miss. 2001), the defendant, Jimmy Ray Turner, was convicted of the murder of his wife. The couple had contemplated Divorce, but had apparently reconciled. After their reconciliation, they went together to the defendant’s parents’ house to return a borrowed shotgun. As they walked to the parents’ house, the defendant, who testified that he did not think the shotgun was loaded, demonstrated to his wife how he carried the gun with his fingers on the trigger and walked with his arms swinging. His wife stopped suddenly, bumping into the defendant. The shotgun fired, killing the wife. Although the defendant was not charged with premeditated murder, he was indicted and convicted of depraved-heart murder due to his gross negligence in handling the shotgun.

Most states also have a felony murder statute. Under the felony murder doctrine, a person who attempts or commits a specified felony may be held responsible for a death caused by an accomplice in the commission of the felony; an attempt to commit the felony; or flight from the felony or attempted felony. For example, if two persons rob a bank and during the Robbery one of them shoots and kills a security guard, the perpetrator who did not pull the trigger nevertheless may be charged with murder. The felonies that most commonly give rise to a felony murder charge are murder, rape, robbery, Burglary, Kidnapping, and Arson. Many states add to this list. Maine, for example, adds gross sexual assault and escape from lawful custody (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 202 [West 1996]). Generally, felony murder liability lies only if the death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the felony, a felony attempt, or flight from the crime. For example, courts have held that death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of armed robbery. Most states divide the crime of murder into first and second degrees. In such states, any intentional, unlawful killing done without justification or excuse is considered second-degree murder. The offense usually is punished with a long prison term or a prison term for life without the possibility of parole. Second-degree murder can be upgraded to first-degree murder, a more serious offense than second-degree murder, if the murder was accomplished with an aggravating or special circumstance. An aggravating or special circumstance is something that makes the crime especially heinous or somehow worthy of extra punishment. California lists some 20 different special circumstances that can boost a murder from second to first degree, including murder carried out for financial gain; murder committed with an explosive; murder committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest; murder to perfect or attempt an escape from lawful custody; murder of a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, judge, or elected, appointed, or former government official; murder committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel fashion where the killer lay in wait for, or hid from, the victim; murder where the victim was tortured by the killer; murder where the killer used poison; or murder where the killing occurred during the commission of, aid of, or flight from certain felonies. These felonies include rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, arson, train wrecking, sodomy, the performance of a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under age 14, and oral copulation with a child under age 14 (Cal. Penal Code § 190.2 [West 1996]). If a murder does not qualify by statute for first-degree murder, it is charged as second-degree murder. A second-degree murder may be downgraded to Manslaughter if mitigating factors were involved in the killing, such as adequate provocation by the victim, or the absence of intent or recklessness on the part of the defendant. Maine has simplified the law of murder. In Maine, a person is guilty of murder if he or she intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another human being, engages in conduct that manifests a depraved indifference to the value of human life and causes death, or intentionally or knowingly causes another human being to commit suicide by the use of force, duress, or deception (Me. Stat. tit. 17-A § 201 [1996]). Maine also has a felony murder statute. It does not divide murder into degrees. Sentencing for murder varies from state to state, and according to degrees in the states that have them. Second-degree murder usually is punished with more than 20 years in prison. A person convicted of second-degree murder in Minnesota, for example, may be sentenced to prison for not more than 40 years. Some states, such as California, allow a sentence up to life in prison for second-degree murder. In some states that have a first-degree murder charge, the crime is punished with a life term in prison without the possibility of parole. In other states, first-degree murder is punishable by death. A defendant’s criminal history may affect sentencing for a murder conviction. The greater the criminal history, the more time the defendant is likely to serve. The criminal history of a murder defendant may even cause a murder charge to be upgraded from second degree to first degree. In California, for example, a murder defendant who has a prior conviction for murder faces an automatic first-degree murder charge. The strongest defenses to a murder charge are provocation and Self-Defense. If the defendant acted completely in self-defense, this fact may relieve the defendant of all criminal liability. If it does not relieve the defendant of all liability, self-defense at least may reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. Provocation rarely results in complete absolution, but it may reduce the defendant’s criminal liability. For example, suppose that a family is being tormented by a neighbor for no apparent reason. The neighbor has damaged the family’s property, assaulted the children, and killed the family dog. If the father kills the neighbor and is charged with murder, the father may argue that the provocation by the victim was so great that if he is to be found criminally liable at all, he should be found liable for manslaughter, not murder.

13 BLC (2008) 163 Ali Hossain VS. The State- Mere killing of a person or mere causing a person’s death is not murder, culpable homicide or even any criminal offence but it is so when cause certain guilty intention or guilty knowledge. Thee classes of cause have been described in section 299 of the Penal code as “ culpable homicide “ and four classes of cases have been described in section 300 as murder. So in the fact and circumstances of the case the act was done within the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. But without intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as cause death or to cause such a bodily injury as case death which will come within the mischief of section 304 part II of than Penal code and, as such, the appellant ought to have been convicted under section 304 part II of the Penal Code. But the learned Judge of the trial court wrongly convicted him under section 302 of the Penal Code.

 48 DLR (1996) HCD 257 The State VS. Abdul Howlader: When all that the accused intended was to strike his wife and the strike by mistake hit there newly born baby which had led to the killing, such of the accused falls within purview of exception-1 of section 300 of the Penal code.

 60 DLR (2008) 261 Sudhir Kumar Das VS. The State: The murder having taken place while the accused was leaving with his wife house, the accused husband under section 106 of the Evidence Act is under obligation is explain how is wife and met with her death. In absence of any explanation coming from his side, none other than the accused husband was responsible for causing such a death.

24 DLR 164 Kasiruddin VS. State: Under section 302, husband cannot be held responsible for the murder of his wife nearly because they used to quarrel occasionally.

39 DLR (AD) 194 Nausher Ali VS. State: Punishment for murder is death or transportation for life which is at he discretion of the court in consideration of the fact and circumstance of the case.


First, always be wary of statistics.  They can be made to sound as proof of whatever theory the user wants them to prove.  For example, the word “homicide” covers many forms of unnatural death and is not limited to murder, however many people think that it is.  Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of another’s life.

  • According to FBI statistics, over 18,000 people were murdered in 1997. The 1997 figure was down 7 percent from 1996, and 26 percent from 1993.
  • According to data about 15,289 of the estimated 18,209 murders in 1997: 77 percent of the victims were males and 88 percent were persons 18 years of age or older. Forty-four percent were ages 20 through 34. The percentage of whites murdered was 48 percent, blacks 49 percent, and other races accounted for the remainder.
  • In 1997, according to supplemental data reported for 17,272 offenders, 90 percent of the offenders for whom sex, age, and race were reported were male, and 87 percent were persons 18 of age and older. Seventy percent were ages 17-34. Of offenders for whom race was known, 53 percent were black, 45 percent were white, and the remainders were persons of other races.
  • Data indicate that murder is most often intra-racial among victims and offenders. In 1997, data based on incidents involving one victim and one offender show that 94 percent of the black murder victims were slain by black offenders, and 85 percent of white murder victims were killed by white offenders.
  • According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen before 1970. The homicide rate doubled from the mid 1960’s to the late 1970’s. In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1985. It rose again in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s to a peak of9.8 per 100,000 in 1991. Since then, the rate has declined, reaching 6.8 per 100,000 by 1997.


Homicide comes from the Latin word homocidium, from homo- human being + cidium- to cut, kill. Homicide refers to the act of killing another human being. It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. Although homicide does not define an illegal act necessarily, some jurisdictions use the word to indicate the unlawful killing of a person.

Culpable homicide (also known as negligent homicide) is a specific offence in various jurisdictions which generally involves the unlawful killing of another with (in most relevant jurisdictions, but not all) an absence of an intention to kill. The term is also used in some other jurisdictions as an official description for the general group of offences involving the unlawful killing of a human being.

A Nolo Press glossary definition claims the legal definition of homicide involves, “The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another.” A homicide defines any killing of one human being by another, criminal or otherwise. “Homicide is considered no criminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court.”

According to U.S. Legal, the law typically considers criminal homicide, or murder, a malum in se immorality, and every legal system contains some form of prohibition or regulation of criminal homicide.


According to section 299, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or 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.


Exception 1– Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or cause the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following proviso:

Firstly– That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.

Explanation Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.


  1. A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z’s child. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
  2. Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
  3. A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
  4. A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that he does not believe a word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder
  5. ] A attempts to pull Z’s nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was giving by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
  6. Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.



 Section- 301 If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause



Section- 304:-Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with  imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.


Culpable homicide offences are found in the following jurisdictions; the description of the local version of the offence is given where available:


The term is part of the Criminal Code of Canada (sec 222), where all killings of persons are classified as culpable or not culpable homicide. In Canada there are three types of culpable homicide: murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Killings classified as not culpable are justifiable killings; thus the term is used to define the criminal intent or mens rea of a killing.


The offences include causing death whether by intention or not.

Culpable Homicide is an offence under s.299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), defined as:- “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or 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 not amounting to Murder is an offence under s.304 of the Indian Penal Code. It applies to an event where the death is intentional but does not come within the IPC definition of Murder.


Culpable homicide is committed where the accused has caused loss of life through wrongful conduct, but where there was no intention to kill or ‘wicked recklessness. It is an offence under Common Law and is roughly equivalent to the offence of manslaughter in English law.

While the offence charged remains the same there can be a great variation between individual cases including whether or not the act was voluntary or involuntary:

  • Voluntary culpable homicide is homicide where the mens rea for murder is present but mitigating circumstances reduce the crime to culpable homicide.
  • Involuntary culpable homicide is homicide where the mens rea for murder is not present but either the independent mens rea for culpable homicide is present, or the circumstances in which death was caused make it culpable homicide. Involuntary culpable homicide may arise in the context of an unlawful act or a lawful act. The mens rea requirement is different in each case.

The offence has previously been applied to individual defendants but following the collapse of a trial brought against Transco following the deaths of 4 people in a gas explosion in Larkhall in 1999 and other fatal events involving corporate bodies the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has introduced a new statuary offence of corporate homicide into Scots Law.


Culpable Homicide is defined under s299 of the Penal Code: “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or 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”. Murder is a subset of Culpable Homicide, and is defined under s300.

Causing death through a rash or negligent act is considered not to amount to Culpable Homicide and is defined under s304A instead.

South Africa

Culpable Homicide has been defined simply as “the unlawful negligent killing of a human being”.


According to Homicide, or willful and intentional murder (art. 131 of the Penal Code), is punishable with a prison sentence of no less than 8 years and no longer than 16 years.

Aggravated homicide(art. 132 of the Penal Code) is considered any willful and intentional act in which death is provoked under particularly censurable or malicious circumstances, and is punishable with a prison term of no less than 12 and no longer than 25 years.

The following circumstances are adequate to constitute a case of aggravated homicide:

  1. a) When the murderer is a descendant or an ascendant, either by blood or adoption, of the victim.
  2. b) When the victim is the spouse, former spouse, or person of the same or different with sex with whom the felon had a marital relationship, even if not a member of the same household, or the other parent of the son or daughter of the felon.
  3. c) When the victim is especially defenseless, due to his/her age, handicap, illness or pregnancy.
  4. d) When the murder employs torture or other act of cruelty to enhance the victim’s sufferance.
  5. e) When the murder is determined by greed, by the pleasure of causing death or suffering, for personal enjoyment or sexual gratification or any other futile motive.
  6. f) When the murder is determined by racial, religious or political hatred or motivated by the color, ethnical or national origin, sex or the sexual orientation of the victim.
  7. g) When the murder takes place in order to prepare, facilitate, execute or dissimulate another crime, or to facilitate the escape from the authorities.
  8. h) When the act is carried out in conjunction with, at least, another two people or when an especially dangerous mean is used to cause death.
  9. i) When poison or any other insidious mean is used to cause death.
  10. j) When the intent to commit murder has persisted for longer than 24 hours.
  11. l) When the victim is the holder of public office, a docent, a minister of any religious cult, a judge or referee of any federated sport, and the act is related and caused by the exercise of said functions.
  12. m) When the murderer is a public servant (e.g. a police officer) and the act takes place with serious abuse of authority.

Other than homicide and aggravated homicide, the Penal Code also has provisions for other forms of intentionally and unlawfully causing someone’s death:

  • Privileged homicide (art. 133) – when the murder takes place under an understandable violent emotion, compassion, despair or other socially or morally relevant motive, such as to significantly diminish the murderer’s degree of guilt. Punishment in this case is prison for 1 to 5 years.
  • Homicide by request (art. 134) – when the murder is carried out at the serious, constant and explicit request of the victim. Punishment is prison for 6 months to 3 years.
  • Inciting or assisting suicide (art. 135) – if someone incites or assists another person to commit suicide, he or she is sentenced to prison for 6 months to 3 years. The punishment is increased to a prison term of 1 to 5 year, in the case the victim is under 16 years old or has, in any way, his or her capacity impaired.
  • Infanticide (art. 136) – when the mother, under the disturbing influence of delivering the baby, commits murder while delivering it, or immediately afterwards. Punishment is 1 to 5 years imprisonment.
  • Abortion (art. 140) – abortion carried out without the consent of the pregnant woman is punishable with imprisonment for 2 to 8 years. Abortion with the consent of the pregnant woman carries a prison term of 6 months to 3 years; the same penalty applying to the woman consenting to the abortion. However, abortion is not punishable if carried out at a registered clinic or hospital, at the request of the pregnant woman, until the tenth week of pregnancy (or later, in some circumstances).


Culpable homicide is classified into two broad categories voluntary and involuntary culpable homicide. A culpable homicide is thus classified on the basis of the “mens rea” being present or not. The Latin term “mens rea” translates to “guilty mind” and is one of the basic principles used in Criminal Law. It comes from the Latin phrase that goes “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means “the act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty”.

The crime of manslaughter is termed as culpable homicide. It is a kind of criminal homicide. It’s a term in the Law of Scotland that covers a number of criminal homicides equivalent to manslaughter in legal criminal jurisdictions. Culpable homicide is usually broken down into ‘involuntary culpable homicide’ and ‘involuntary culpable homicide’. Voluntary culpable homicide is one in which the mens rea (literally “guilty mind”) for murder is present, but the circumstances may reduce the act to culpable homicide. In involuntary culpable homicide, the mens rea for murder may not be present, but either the circumstances which caused the death or the independent mens rea make it a culpable homicide. Involuntary culpable homicide may arise in context of lawful or unlawful act. The requirement of mens reais different in every case.


The easiest way to describe the differences between murder and homicide is that homicide is the killing of another human being, while murder requires the intent to kill another human being. Homicide can be used to describe any death where another person is at fault, but there are mitigating circumstances that can influence the charge of homicide. When someone is convicted of murder, however, they are not only convicted of a homicide, but also the malicious intent to kill.

In the United States, we have terms like “justifiable homicide” and “non-criminal homicide” that are used to describe acts of homicide where there is no “mens rea” involved. The U.S. requires that the prosecution in a criminal trial prove both actus reus and mens rea in a criminal crime; the former translates as “guilty mind” and the latter refers to “guilty act”. Actus reus is simply the proof that a defendant committed a criminal act, while mens rea is a little more complicated. In order to prove mens rea, the prosecution must show that the defendant either had an intent to commit the crime or acted with criminal negligence.


60 DLR (2008) 255 The State VS. Aynul Hoque Mollah: The death of the victim was without any premeditation caused in a certain provocation resulting from use of insulting language. The accused Aynul Haque Mollah inflicted daw, blow on the left chest of the victim in the heat of passion and thus such act clearly falls under section 304 part II of the Penal code. 

40 DLR (AD) 139 Dipok Kumar Sharkar VS. State: Under 302 of the Penal Code, Culpable conduct of the accused he made no attempt to look for his wife since she was missing is explicit, when is confirmatory of his involvement in the murder of his wife. Normally an accused is murder no obligation to account for the death for which he is on trial, but this is bond to be difficult.


According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen before 1970. The homicide rate doubled from the mid 1960’s to the late 1970’s. In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 populations and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1985. It rose again in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s to a peak of 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991. Since then, the rate has declined, reaching 6.8 per 100,000 by 1997.

  • Homicides are more likely to involve multiple offenders than multiple victims.
  • The percentage of homicides involving multiple offenders increased dramatically in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, increasing from 10% in 1976 to 16% in 1997.

The percentage of homicides involving multiple victims increased gradually during the last two decades from just fewer than 3% of all homicides to 4%.


Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. Individual human societies may each define crime and crimes differently. While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime;

The idea of crime has a long history. Some religious communities regard sin as a crime; some may even highlight the crime of sin very early in legendary or mythological accounts of origins — noted that the first crime that took place on earth was murder of HAZRAT ADAM (ALAIS SALAM)’s son “HABIL” by HIS another son “KABIL” (ref: HOLY QURAN).

When informal relationships and sanctions prove insufficient to establish and maintain a desired social order, a government or a sovereign state may impose more formalized or stricter systems of social control. With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State can compel populations to conform to codes, and can opt to punish or to attempt to reform those who do not conform.

One can view criminalization as a procedure deployed by society as a pre-emptive, harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a deterrent to anyone proposing to engage in the behavior causing harm.

The label of “crime” and the accompanying social stigma normally confine their scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. Those who apply the labels of “crime” or “criminal” intend to assert the hegemony of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify any punishments prescribed by the State (in the event that standard processing tries and convicts an accused person of a crime).

Facts State that, murder rates per 100,000 in Europe have fallen over the centuries, from 35 per 100,000 in medieval times, to 20 in 1500 AD, 5 in 1700, to below two per 100,000 “where it has held steady, with minor fluctuations, for the past century.” In the United States, murders rates have been higher and have fluxgates. They rose during the nineteenth century, dropped in the years following World War II, before rising again. The rate reached eleven per 100,000 in 1991 before falling to five per 100,000 in present times. [According to scholar Pieter Spierenburg]

When a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king’s peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

However, by taking very effective step it might be controlled and hope for the peaceful society.