Understanding Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 105 – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

Introduction 

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is a significant legal code in India, replacing the older Indian Penal Code (IPC). Enacted to modernize and streamline the criminal justice system, BNS aims to address contemporary issues and enhance the efficiency of legal proceedings. Understanding the various sections of BNS is crucial for legal professionals, law students, and anyone interested in the Indian legal framework.

Importance of Understanding Different Sections of BNS

Each section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita holds unique importance, detailing specific offenses, their definitions, and corresponding punishments. Familiarity with these sections ensures better legal practice, informed decision-making, and enhanced legal literacy. It also aids in navigating the complexities of the legal system, ensuring justice is served efficiently and effectively. For instance, comprehending the nuances of sections related to culpable homicide, theft, or fraud can significantly impact legal outcomes.

Focus of the Blog: Section 105 – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

This blog focuses on Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with “Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder.” This section is pivotal in distinguishing between varying degrees of unlawful killings. Understanding Section 105 is essential for legal practitioners as it outlines the circumstances under which a homicide is considered culpable but not equivalent to murder. This distinction has profound implications for legal defenses, sentencing, and the overall administration of justice.

Section 105 Overview: Understanding Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

Definition of Culpable Homicide under BNS

Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines “Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder” as an act that causes death without the specific intent to kill but with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. This section addresses instances where an individual’s actions result in the death of another person under circumstances that do not constitute murder. Understanding this definition is crucial for distinguishing between varying degrees of unlawful killing.

Distinction Between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder lies primarily in the intent and circumstances surrounding the act. While murder, as defined in Section 104 of BNS, involves premeditation and a clear intent to cause death, culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 involves:

1. Absence of Premeditation: Unlike murder, culpable homicide does not involve a planned intention to kill.
2. Knowledge vs. Intent: The perpetrator has knowledge that their actions are likely to cause death but lacks the specific intent to kill.
3. Circumstantial Factors: Situations such as sudden provocation, heat of passion, or acts done in the heat of the moment can lead to a classification under Section 105 rather than Section 104.

Legal Nuances and Implications

Section 105 has significant legal nuances that impact judicial proceedings and sentencing. Key aspects include:

1. Punishments: Offenders under Section 105 can face imprisonment for life or a term not less than five years, which may extend up to ten years, along with fines. The severity depends on whether the act was committed with intent or mere knowledge.
2. Judicial Discretion: Courts have the discretion to interpret the intent and circumstances of the act, leading to varied outcomes based on the specifics of each case.
3. Case Precedents: Several landmark judgments have clarified the application of Section 105, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the perpetrator’s state of mind and the context of the act.
4. Legal Defenses: Understanding the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is critical for legal defenses. Lawyers must present evidence showing the absence of intent to kill, highlighting factors like sudden provocation or lack of premeditation.

Key Elements of Section 105: Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

Explanation of Intent and Knowledge

Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) focuses on culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it based on the perpetrator’s intent and knowledge. Here’s a breakdown of these key elements:

• Intent: This refers to the purpose or intention behind the act. In cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the perpetrator does not have the deliberate intention to cause death. The act may have been committed in a state of provocation or in the heat of passion, where the intention to kill was absent.
• Knowledge: This involves the awareness of the likely consequences of the act. The perpetrator knows that their actions could result in death, but there is no specific intent to kill. This knowledge differentiates culpable homicide from mere accidents or negligence.

Understanding these elements is crucial as they form the basis for legal arguments and judicial decisions in cases of culpable homicide under Section 105.

Circumstances Under Which Culpable Homicide Does Not Amount to Murder

Several circumstances can lead to an act being classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105:

• Sudden Provocation: If the perpetrator is provoked suddenly and acts in a fit of rage without premeditation, resulting in death, it can be considered culpable homicide. The lack of planning and the immediate reaction to provocation mitigate the severity of the crime.
• Heat of Passion: Actions taken in the heat of passion, without the intent to kill but with the knowledge that they might cause death, fall under this section. For example, a person may unintentionally cause death during a heated argument or physical altercation.
• Mistaken Identity or Accident: In cases where death occurs due to mistaken identity or an accidental act with no intent to kill, the crime is classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The perpetrator’s knowledge of the potential consequences, even without intent, is key.

Examples of Situations Falling Under Section 105

To better understand the application of Section 105, here are some examples of situations that could be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder:

• Example 1: Road Rage Incident
  • During a road rage incident, a driver, in a fit of anger, strikes another person with a blunt object. The act was not premeditated, and there was no intent to kill, but the driver had knowledge that the action could cause serious harm or death. This situation falls under Section 105.
• Example 2: Domestic Dispute
  • In a domestic dispute, one spouse, out of sudden provocation, pushes the other, causing them to fall and sustain fatal injuries. The act was done in the heat of the moment without intent to kill but with the knowledge that such an action could be dangerous.
• Example 3: Self-Defense Gone Wrong
  • A person, while defending themselves from an attacker, uses force that unintentionally causes the attacker’s death. The defender had no intent to kill but knew that their actions might lead to serious harm. This could be classified under Section 105.

Legal Provisions and Interpretations of Section 105

Key Legal Terminologies Explained

• Culpable Homicide: This refers to an act that results in death, where the perpetrator had the knowledge or intention that their actions were likely to cause death. It does not reach the level of murder due to the absence of premeditation or specific intent to kill.
• Intent: In legal terms, intent signifies the purpose or objective behind committing an act. For Section 105, it refers to the perpetrator’s conscious decision to engage in conduct that causes death, even if they did not intend to kill.
• Knowledge: This implies awareness of the potential consequences of one’s actions. Under Section 105, a person may not have intended to cause death but acted with the awareness that their actions were likely to result in fatal outcomes.
• Imprisonment for Life: This is a type of sentence where the convicted individual is required to spend the rest of their life in prison, subject to parole or other legal provisions.
• Imprisonment of Either Description: This term refers to two types of imprisonment: rigorous (involving hard labor) and simple (without hard labor).

Interpretation by Courts and Legal Precedents

Courts play a crucial role in interpreting Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The judiciary examines the circumstances of each case to determine whether an act qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Key considerations include:

1. State of Mind: Courts analyze the perpetrator’s mental state at the time of the act to distinguish between intent and knowledge. For instance, if a person acts in sudden provocation, the absence of premeditated intent could lead to a conviction under Section 105 rather than murder.
2. Context of the Act: The context in which the act was committed is scrutinized to understand if it was a result of provocation, self-defense, or a spontaneous reaction. This helps in differentiating it from murder, which typically involves planned actions.
3. Landmark Judgments: Several landmark cases have set precedents in interpreting Section 105. For example, in the case of Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reduced a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering the lack of intent to kill despite the knowledge that the act could result in death.

Detailed Analysis of Section 105’s Text

Imprisonment for Life or Imprisonment for a Term of 5 to 10 Years with Fine if Death is Caused with Intent

Section 105 outlines severe penalties for acts of culpable homicide where death is caused with intent but lacks the premeditation required for murder. The key elements include:

• Imprisonment for Life: This severe punishment applies when the act causing death is committed with clear intent to cause bodily harm or death. The perpetrator’s awareness and objective behind the act warrant a life sentence.
• Term of 5 to 10 Years: Alternatively, the court may impose imprisonment for a minimum of five years, extending up to ten years, based on the severity and circumstances of the act. Alongside imprisonment, the offender may also be liable to pay a fine.

Imprisonment for Up to 10 Years with Fine if Death is Caused with Knowledge but Without Intent

When the death results from an act done with knowledge of the potential fatal outcome but without specific intent to kill, Section 105 prescribes:

• Imprisonment for Up to 10 Years: The perpetrator may face imprisonment for a term that can extend up to ten years. The absence of intent to kill mitigates the severity of the punishment compared to murder charges.
• Fine: In addition to imprisonment, the court may impose a fine as a punitive measure, reflecting the gravity of the act and its consequences.

Differences Between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

Detailed Comparison of Section 105 with Section 104 (Murder) and Corresponding Sections in IPC

Murder (Section 104 of BNS and Section 302 of IPC)

Premeditation and Specific Intent to Cause Death

• Definition: Murder involves a deliberate and premeditated act where the perpetrator has a clear intention to cause death or knows that their actions are likely to cause death.
• Premeditation: Acts of murder are typically planned and executed with the explicit goal of killing the victim.
• Specific Intent: The perpetrator has a specific intent to cause death or inflict fatal injuries, indicating a high level of malice and forethought.

Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Section 105 of BNS and Section 304 of IPC)

Knowledge of the Act’s Consequences but Not Specific Intent to Kill

• Definition: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder refers to acts where the perpetrator causes death without specific intent to kill but with knowledge that their actions are likely to cause death.
• Absence of Premeditation: These acts are often spontaneous, occurring in the heat of the moment or under sudden provocation.
• Knowledge vs. Intent: The perpetrator is aware that their actions could result in death but lacks the specific intent to kill, distinguishing it from murder.

Analysis of Intent, Motive, and Circumstances

Murder

• Intent: Clear, deliberate intention to kill or cause fatal injuries.
• Motive: Often involves malice, revenge, or other strong emotions driving the intent to kill.
• Circumstances: Typically involves premeditated actions, calculated moves, and a conscious decision to end a life.

Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

• Intent: Lack of specific intent to kill but awareness that actions could lead to death.
• Motive: Can include sudden provocation, self-defense, or accidental outcomes from reckless behavior.
• Circumstances: Usually occurs in spontaneous situations, without prior planning or specific intent to cause death. Examples include deaths resulting from sudden fights, reckless driving, or unintended consequences of a defensive action.

Legal Consequences and Penalties for Each

Murder (Section 104 of BNS and Section 302 of IPC)

• Punishment: Severe penalties including the death penalty or life imprisonment.
• Severity: Reflects the gravity of the crime, emphasizing the deliberate intent to kill.
• Legal Consequences: Conviction for murder carries the most severe legal consequences, impacting the perpetrator’s life permanently.

Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Section 105 of BNS and Section 304 of IPC)

• Punishment: Less severe than murder. Includes imprisonment for life or for a term ranging from 5 to 10 years with a fine if the death is caused with intent. If the death is caused with knowledge but without intent, imprisonment can extend up to 10 years with a fine.
• Severity: Recognizes the absence of premeditated intent, resulting in comparatively lighter sentences.
• Legal Consequences: Convictions carry significant legal repercussions but reflect the lesser degree of malice involved compared to murder.

Important Case Laws: Landmark Judgments Related to Section 105

Landmark Judgments Related to Section 105

Understanding Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) through landmark judgments is crucial for grasping its legal implications and interpretations. Here are some significant case laws that have shaped the application of this section:

1. Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra
2. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
3. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

Analysis of Significant Case Laws and Their Impact on Legal Interpretations

Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra

• Case Overview: In this case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with an incident where the appellant, Dattatraya, in an inebriated state, had a fight with his pregnant wife and poured kerosene on her while she was cooking, resulting in 98% burn injuries. The wife gave a dying declaration accusing the appellant of the act.
• Initial Charges: The case was initially registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with attempted murder, but was later converted to Section 302 IPC (murder) along with the addition of a charge under Section 316 IPC (causing death of a quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide).
• Trial and Conviction: The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court, and the conviction was upheld by the Bombay High Court.
• Supreme Court Ruling: On appeal, the Supreme Court found that while the appellant had knowledge of the consequences of his act, there was no intention to cause death. The Court considered the incident as a sudden fight in the heat of passion and converted the findings from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
• Impact: This ruling highlighted the importance of distinguishing between intent and knowledge, influencing subsequent interpretations of Section 105 of BNS.

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab

• Case Overview: Virsa Singh was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of a person by inflicting a single spear blow.
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, it must be proved that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the intention was to cause that particular injury.
• Impact: This judgment laid down important principles for differentiating between murder and culpable homicide, reinforcing the need to establish intent and the nature of the injuries caused.

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

• Case Overview: K.M. Nanavati, a naval officer, was charged with murder under Section 302 IPC for shooting his wife’s lover.
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the act was premeditated, and therefore, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was appropriate.
• Impact: This case reinforced the concept of premeditation and specific intent to kill, which are essential for a conviction of murder rather than culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Case Example: Supreme Court Ruling in Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court ruling in Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra is a key example illustrating the application of Section 105:

• Facts of the Case: The appellant, in a fit of rage and under the influence of alcohol, caused severe burn injuries to his wife, leading to her death.
• Initial Conviction: Convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and the conviction upheld by the Bombay High Court.
• Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court reduced the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, considering the lack of premeditation and intent to kill.
• Rationale: The Court noted that while the appellant had knowledge of the potential fatal outcome, there was no deliberate intention to cause death, and the act occurred in the heat of the moment during a domestic dispute.
• Significance: This ruling underscores the importance of evaluating the perpetrator’s intent and the circumstances of the act, influencing how similar cases are interpreted under Section 105.

Summary of Court Rulings and Their Rationale

The landmark judgments related to Section 105 emphasize the following:

1. Intent vs. Knowledge: The distinction between specific intent to kill (murder) and knowledge of the act’s potential to cause death (culpable homicide) is crucial.
2. Premeditation: Murder involves premeditated actions, while culpable homicide can occur without prior planning, often in spontaneous situations.
3. Circumstances: The context in which the act occurs—such as sudden provocation, heat of passion, or accidental outcomes—plays a significant role in determining the appropriate charge and penalty.
4. Legal Interpretations: Courts consider the perpetrator’s state of mind, motive, and the nature of the act to differentiate between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Practical Implications of Section 105: Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

How Section 105 Affects Law Enforcement and Judicial Proceedings

Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, has significant implications for law enforcement and judicial proceedings:

1. Investigation and Evidence Collection:
   • Detailed Investigations: Law enforcement agencies must conduct thorough investigations to ascertain the intent and knowledge behind the act. This involves collecting evidence that shows whether the perpetrator had premeditated the act or acted in the heat of the moment.
   • Witness Testimonies: Gathering reliable witness testimonies is crucial to establish the context and circumstances of the act. This helps in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide.
2. Judicial Proceedings:
   • Case Evaluation: Judges must carefully evaluate the facts of each case, considering the intent, motive, and circumstances. The burden of proof lies in demonstrating whether the act was committed with specific intent to kill or merely with knowledge of the potential consequences.
   • Sentencing Decisions: Section 105 provides flexibility in sentencing, allowing judges to impose life imprisonment or a term ranging from 5 to 10 years, depending on the severity of the act and the presence of intent or knowledge.

Impact on Defendants and Their Legal Rights

1. Right to a Fair Trial:
   • Due Process: Defendants charged under Section 105 are entitled to due process, ensuring a fair trial where evidence is presented and examined thoroughly.
   • Legal Representation: Defendants have the right to legal representation, enabling them to present their case effectively and argue against the charges.
2. Defense Strategies:
   • Provocation and Sudden Fight: Defendants can argue that the act was committed in the heat of passion or due to sudden provocation, reducing the severity of the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
   • Absence of Intent: Demonstrating the absence of specific intent to kill can lead to a lesser charge and lighter sentencing under Section 105.
3. Sentencing and Rehabilitation:
   • Proportionate Sentencing: The flexibility in sentencing under Section 105 allows for proportionate penalties based on the circumstances. This ensures that defendants are not unduly punished for acts lacking premeditation.
   • Rehabilitation Opportunities: Sentences under Section 105 may include provisions for rehabilitation, reflecting the lesser degree of malice compared to murder charges.

Role of Legal Professionals in Navigating Cases Under Section 105

1. Defense Lawyers:
   • Case Preparation: Defense lawyers play a critical role in preparing a robust defense by gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and presenting mitigating factors that highlight the absence of intent to kill.
   • Legal Arguments: Effective legal arguments focusing on sudden provocation, self-defense, or lack of premeditation can significantly impact the outcome of the case, potentially reducing charges from murder to culpable homicide.
2. Prosecutors:
   • Establishing Intent: Prosecutors must establish whether the defendant had the intent to kill or acted with knowledge of the potential consequences. This involves presenting evidence that demonstrates the severity and nature of the act.
   • Balancing Justice: Prosecutors have the responsibility to balance seeking justice for the victim while ensuring that the charges accurately reflect the defendant’s actions and intent.
3. Judges:
   • Impartial Evaluation: Judges must impartially evaluate all evidence and testimonies to determine the appropriate charge and sentence. Their decisions must be based on a thorough understanding of the legal distinctions between murder and culpable homicide.
   • Sentencing Discretion: Judges use their discretion to impose sentences that reflect the circumstances and severity of the act, ensuring justice is served while considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Comparative Analysis: BNS Section 105 vs. IPC Section 304

Comparison of BNS Section 105 with IPC Section 304

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 105 and Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 304 both deal with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but they have differences in their statutory framework, prescribed penalties, and judicial interpretations.

Punishment Prescribed

BNS Section 105:

• Punishment for Intentional Acts: Imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) for a term not less than five years, which may extend to ten years, along with a fine if the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Punishment for Knowledge-Based Acts: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, along with a fine 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.

IPC Section 304:

• Part I (Intentional Acts): Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, along with a fine if the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Part II (Knowledge-Based Acts): Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with a 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.

Differences in Penalties and Emphasis on Minimum Imprisonment Terms

Minimum Imprisonment Terms:

• BNS Section 105 places an emphasis on a minimum term of five years for intentional acts, whereas IPC Section 304 does not specify a minimum term for similar acts, providing a broader range of judicial discretion.

Severity and Flexibility:

• Both sections prescribe life imprisonment for the most severe cases, but BNS Section 105 includes a mandatory minimum term for intentional acts, reflecting a slightly stricter stance compared to IPC Section 304, which allows more flexibility.

Differences in the Statutory Framework and Judicial Interpretations

Statutory Framework:

• BNS Section 105 is part of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which aims to modernize and update the legal provisions to reflect contemporary issues and societal changes.
• IPC Section 304 has been in place since the Indian Penal Code was established in 1860. It has been subject to various amendments and judicial interpretations over the years but retains its original framework.

Judicial Interpretations:

• BNS Section 105: Judicial interpretations under the BNS are relatively new, focusing on how modern legal principles and societal norms are applied. Judges may rely on recent case laws and evolving legal standards to interpret Section 105.
• IPC Section 304: Judicial interpretations of IPC Section 304 are well-established, with a vast body of case law providing precedents. Courts have consistently analyzed the intent and knowledge elements to differentiate between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Key Interpretive Elements:

• Intent vs. Knowledge: Both BNS and IPC sections emphasize the distinction between intent and knowledge. Courts scrutinize the perpetrator’s state of mind, the circumstances of the act, and whether there was any premeditation or sudden provocation.
• Proportionality of Sentences: Judicial interpretations under both frameworks aim to ensure proportionality in sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the act, the perpetrator’s intent or knowledge, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Conclusion

Understanding Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 105 is crucial for distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This section emphasizes the importance of intent and knowledge in determining the severity of the offense and the appropriate penalties. 

By examining key legal terminologies, judicial interpretations, and landmark case laws, we gain a comprehensive view of how Section 105 is applied in legal practice. The comparison with IPC Section 304 further highlights the nuances in sentencing and legal frameworks. This knowledge is vital for legal professionals, law enforcement, and individuals navigating the complexities of criminal law.

FAQs: Understanding Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 105

Q1. What is Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?

Ans1. Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It defines acts that cause death without specific intent to kill but with knowledge that the act could result in death.

Q2. How does Section 105 differ from Section 104 (Murder) in BNS?

Ans2. Section 105 involves knowledge of the act’s consequences but not specific intent to kill, while Section 104 involves premeditation and specific intent to cause death.

Q3. What are the penalties under Section 105 of the BNS?

Ans3. Penalties under Section 105 include life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years with a fine if the act is done with intent. If the act is done with knowledge but without intent, the imprisonment can extend up to 10 years with a fine.

Q4. What is the significance of intent and knowledge in Section 105?

Ans4. Intent and knowledge are crucial in distinguishing culpable homicide not amounting to murder from murder. Intent involves a deliberate aim to kill, whereas knowledge means awareness that the act could result in death without specific intent to kill.

Q5. How does Section 105 affect judicial proceedings?

Ans5. Section 105 affects judicial proceedings by requiring courts to assess the perpetrator’s state of mind, intent, and knowledge. Judges must differentiate between premeditated acts and those done in the heat of the moment.

Q6. Can you provide an example of a case under Section 105?

Ans6. An example of a case under Section 105 is Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court reduced a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent to kill.

Q7. How do the penalties under BNS Section 105 compare to IPC Section 304?

Ans7. Penalties under BNS Section 105 are stricter with a mandatory minimum term for intentional acts, while IPC Section 304 allows more judicial discretion without a specified minimum term.

Q8. What are the practical implications of Section 105 for law enforcement?

Ans8. For law enforcement, Section 105 necessitates detailed investigations to determine intent and knowledge, impacting how evidence is gathered and presented in court.

Q9. What role do defense lawyers play in cases under Section 105?

Ans9. Defense lawyers must gather evidence, interview witnesses, and present mitigating factors to argue the absence of specific intent to kill, aiming to reduce charges from murder to culpable homicide.

Q10. How do judicial interpretations of Section 105 and IPC Section 304 differ?

Ans10. Judicial interpretations differ as BNS Section 105 is newer and focuses on modern legal principles, while IPC Section 304 has a well-established body of case law guiding its application.