Murder
Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with murder. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,--- (a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,---
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or
(b) if the act by which the death is caused 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
(c) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
(d) if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, 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.
Illustrations.
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring 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 labouring 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.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
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 causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident:
Provided that the provocation is not,---
(a) sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person;
(b) 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;
(c) given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.---Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations.
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as much 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) 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.
(e) A attempts to pull Zs 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, in as much as the provocation was giving by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) 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.
Exception 2.---Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Illustration.
Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.
Exception 3.---Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.---Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.---It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.---Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration.
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a child to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.
Section 101, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 300 Murder Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-10.pdf 2006-08-18 (not same-date ROP). Crl A 1366/2003. Restates the IPC 299/300 divide: culpable homicide is the genus, murder the species. Lists the teaching factors (intention vs knowledge, nature of the weapon, part of the body, force, previous enmity, whether the act was in the heat of a sudden quarrel) used to choose Exception 4 / s.304 versus s.300. Map ipc 299/300 and successors bns 100/101.
On this section: Successor of IPC 300 (mapping.csv near-identical). Murder-definition teaching carries to BNS 101.
-
Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs The State of Goa Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused raises a plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the test to be applied is legal insanity, not medical insanity. Legal insanity requires incapacity to know the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. The burden on the accused is to establish this on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The crucial point of time is the moment of commission of the offense. Evidence of conduct before, during, and after the offense, combined with medical evidence of mental disorder, is relevant in determining legal insanity. If credible medical evidence establishes mental disorder at the time of the offense, and the accused subsequently becomes fit to stand trial, this is indicative of prior insanity. The trial court and appellate court must apply a preponderance of probabilities standard and not reject the insanity defense merely because the nature of the act appears intentional or because some witnesses did not observe abnormality.
On this section: Definition of culpable homicide. Referenced in the judgment to illustrate that even if an act constitutes culpable homicide, unsoundness of mind would not attract the same liability.
-
Chherturam @ Chainu vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The nature, number, and location of injuries inflicted during a sudden fight, even without premeditation, can demonstrate cruelty and brutality such that Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC does not apply. When injuries are inflicted on vital body parts in a merciless manner with repeated blows that make survival impossible, the act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC, and intoxication does not provide a defense under Section 86 IPC. The conviction for murder must be upheld despite the absence of prior premeditation when the factual circumstances demonstrate an endeavor to end the victim's life through brutal and cruel means.
On this section: Definition of murder with four categories and Exception 4 regarding culpable homicide in sudden fights without premeditation or cruelty
-
Paul vs The State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act amounts to culpable homicide and falls within any of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC, and the accused fails to establish that the case falls within any of the five exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC, the offence constitutes murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The burden on the accused to prove exceptions is by preponderance of probability, but the prosecution burden to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt never shifts. An accused cannot escape the consequences of an act attracting the ingredients of murder by merely pointing to Section 304 IPC. The fact that a false case is set up by the accused does not deprive him of the right to establish that the case falls within exceptions to murder, but such exceptions must be supported by evidence on record. In cases of throttling resulting in death, the presence of injuries on the neck and other parts of the body, combined with the absence of credible explanation from the accused regarding what transpired in the privacy of the bedroom, establishes murder beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Definition of murder with four clauses and five exceptions; court analyzed whether the appellant's act fell within any of the four clauses and whether any exceptions applied
-
Gandi Doddabasappa @ Gandhi Basavaraj vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conviction for murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code can be sustained on the basis of sole eyewitness testimony when such testimony is found to be entirely reliable and truthful, is corroborated by circumstantial evidence (such as recovery of the murder weapon with matching forensic evidence), and when the accused had clear motive for the crime. In honour-based homicides involving murder of a child by a parent due to the child's marriage into a different caste, none of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC apply, and therefore the offence constitutes murder punishable under Section 302, not culpable homicide under Section 304. The High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's acquittal when the trial court's reasoning for rejecting eyewitness evidence was founded on flimsy grounds, and reappreciation of evidence reveals that a different and more reasonable view is possible from the totality of circumstances.
On this section: Definition of murder with five exceptions. The Court examined each exception (grave and sudden provocation, private defence, public servant acting for justice, sudden fight without premeditation, death with consent) and found none applicable to the facts of this case.
-
Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal appeals against acquittal under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the judgment of the High Court unless the same is clearly unreasonable, perverse, manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. The mere fact that another view could also have been taken on the evidence is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal. The burden of proving guilt lies on the prosecution and must be discharged beyond all reasonable doubt, a burden which never shifts. When examining evidence of interested or related witnesses, the court must scrutinize all infirmities very carefully. Eyewitness identification, particularly from distance in darkness, must be carefully evaluated. Material omissions in witness statements recorded during investigation may constitute contradictions under the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC and may create serious doubts about witness credibility. Unjustified delay in recording witness statements when witnesses were available casts doubt on the prosecution case. The testimony of chance witnesses whose presence at the scene remains doubtful should be discarded. When the prosecution relies on interested witnesses without independent corroboration and evidence suffers from multiple infirmities in identification, delays, and omissions, conviction cannot be sustained beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Definition of murder - fourthly - applied to analyze whether prosecution proved death caused with intention to cause such injury; fourth clause of Section 300 IPC used to determine if murder was established
-
Murlidhar Shivram Patekar vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When death results from a sudden fight without premeditation, where the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner, and the fight was provoked by grave circumstances (such as alleged rape and obstruction of justice access), the offender is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 under Section 300 IPC, resulting in conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The absence of prior planning, the immediate and unpremeditated nature of the response, and the lack of deliberate targeting of vital organs with intent to kill are decisive factors in determining culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder.
On this section: Exception to murder conviction when act is done without premeditation, in sudden fight, without undue advantage or cruel manner. Court held all four requirements satisfied: (i) sudden fight; (ii) no premeditation; (iii) heat of passion; (iv) no undue advantage or cruel manner.
-
Shantibhai J Vaghela vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Commission of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC requires some positive act on the part of the accused as distinguished from silence, inaction or a mere lapse. Allegations of not carrying out a prompt search of missing children, delay in lodging formal complaint with police, and failure to take adequate measures to guard access from ashram to river, which are mere omissions, lapses and negligence, cannot make out a case of culpable homicide. Something more positive than a mere omission, lapse or negligence will have to be present to attract ingredients of Section 304 IPC, and such positive material is conspicuously absent in the FIR. In the absence of any acceptable material disclosing the commission of Section 304 offence, High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction to interdict investigation for that offence, though such power must be exercised sparingly and only when facts demand.
On this section: Definition of murder; Court analyzed that not all culpable homicides amount to murder only those within ambit of Section 300
-
Senthil & Etc vs State Rep. Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an assault is committed with blunt weapons (or blunt side of weapons that could have been used sharply), and the deceased dies after a time lapse, and medical evidence shows injuries consistent with blunt weapon use, the criminal act amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC read with Section 34 IPC, not murder under Section 302 IPC, because such facts indicate that the accused had knowledge that their act would cause death but did not have the specific intention to cause death. The distinction between intention to cause death (Section 302) and knowledge of likelihood of death (Section 304 Part-I) is crucial; use of blunt instead of sharp weapons, when both were available, evidences lack of intention to cause death.
On this section: Definition of murder with specific clauses on intention and knowledge; distinguished from culpable homicide
-
Atmaram vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where multiple bodily injuries are intentionally caused by different members of an unlawful assembly acting with common intention and common knowledge that the cumulative effect of such injuries is likely to, and will, cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the offence constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, even if no individual injury is independently sufficient to cause death. The fact that injuries are inflicted on non-vital as well as vital parts of the body by different weapons does not negate the culpability but rather demonstrates the coordinated and brutal nature of the attack indicative of intent to kill. Minor variations in eyewitness statements regarding specific details of attribution of injuries are inconsequential when the core facts of incident, presence of witnesses, involvement of accused, and causation of death are substantially corroborated by medical evidence and dying declaration.
On this section: Establishes that bodily injury (singular or plural) intentionally caused and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death constitutes murder even if no single injury individually meets this threshold
-
Surender Singh vs State (NCT Of Delhi)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused pleads self-defence under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish the plea by credible evidence. The burden, though not as onerous as beyond reasonable doubt, requires some degree of reasonable satisfaction. In the absence of credible evidence supporting the plea of self-defence, the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Similarly, the plea of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC requires that the provocation be such as would temporarily deprive a reasonable person of self-control. The test is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose self-control. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from provocation and not after passion had cooled down. In the present case, the overwhelming eyewitness testimony of four police personnel, corroborated by forensic evidence, establishes that the appellant deliberately and intentionally killed the deceased out of jealousy and motive, not in self-defence or under grave provocation. Therefore, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC is upheld.
On this section: Definition of murder - the court analyzed whether the act constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder
-
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with dacoity-with-murder under Section 396 IPC, the ingredient of murder defined under Section 300 IPC is expressly incorporated into Section 396 by specific statutory language. Therefore, if the evidence establishes that the accused committed murder but does not establish the dacoity component, the accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge for Section 302, provided: (a) the accused had notice that murder was an allegation against him through the Section 396 charge and Section 313 examination where facts were put to him; (b) he had full opportunity to defend himself; (c) no prejudice resulted to his right to fair trial, presumption of innocence, or the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (d) the ingredients of murder under Section 300 IPC are satisfied by the evidence. The principle of cognate offences permits such conviction when the graver offence (dacoity-with-murder) incorporates the essential elements of the lesser offence (murder) by express statutory language, and the accused suffered no failure of justice.
On this section: Defines murder and the exceptions to culpable homicide. Applied to distinguish murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on intention and circumstances
-
Shaukat vs State of Uttaranchal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple evidentiary factors establish premeditation (prior threat, weapon-carrying, deliberate follow-up to confrontation site, specific instruction to kill, and immediate compliance), combined with the infliction of injuries on vital organs with sufficient force to cause immediate death, the act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC and cannot be reduced to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-I IPC merely because the quarrel occurred at the spot. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight without premeditation) does not apply when the temporal and contextual evidence reveals deliberate planning and execution. Similarly, when an appellant inflicts multiple grievous injuries (including bone-deep wounds with fractures) on a person attempting to prevent harm to a victim, this constitutes attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC rather than mere attempt to cause hurt under Section 308 IPC.
On this section: The Court examined whether the facts fall within the ambit of murder or culpable homicide, focusing on the applicability of Exception 4 which requires: (1) a sudden fight, (2) no premeditation, (3) act not done in heat of passion, and (4) no undue advantage or cruel manner. The Court found all four conditions were violated, particularly premeditation evidenced by prior threat and weapon-carrying.
-
Patel Rameshore Baburao vs The State of Manipur
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person kills his spouse upon discovering her infidelity, and such discovery causes grave and sudden provocation leading to loss of self-control, the offense falls within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The mental element required is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, not intention to cause death. The absence of premeditation and the sudden nature of the act in response to grave provocation are significant factors in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.
On this section: Definition of murder; the court examined whether the act fell within the definition of murder or qualified for Exception 1 regarding grave and sudden provocation
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Definition of murder; discussed in context of whether death was homicidal and whether it falls under exceptions to constitute culpable homicide
-
Man Bahadur Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a killing results from a sudden fight arising without premeditation, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, the offense constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, regardless of the fatal nature of the injuries, if the entire factual matrix demonstrates spontaneity and absence of prior intent. The character of the weapon (lathi) and its use in a spontaneous village quarrel escalating from a children's dispute do not elevate the offense to murder when premeditation is absent.
On this section: Murder definition analyzed; Exception 4 invoked to exclude premeditation, undue advantage, and cruelty elements required for murder.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 101
What have the courts held on Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (18 Aug 2006) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 300, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 300 (mapping.csv near-identical). Murder-definition teaching carries to BNS 101. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 101, section 101 BNS, section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 101(1) and bns 101 and 103. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (18 Aug 2006).
What should I read with Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 300 (Murder), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 101, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
- 316. Criminal breach of trust856 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.