Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caus The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but 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 the 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 and with 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.
Section 105, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 304 Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, if act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. | Imprisonment for life, or Imprisonment for not less than 5 years but which may extend to 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| If act be done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, etc. | Imprisonment for 10 years and with fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
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.
-
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2012-01-12 (not same-date order-10 ROP). Lodha/Khehar. Drunk driving that kills can be 304 Part II (knowledge that the act is likely to cause death) and not merely 304A rashness; 304 and 304A can be framed together in the alternative. Fills IPC 304 / BNS 105 (304A is already in combined via Jacob Mathew). Do not map 299 (definition of culpable homicide is not the ratio).
On this section: Successor of IPC 304 (mapping.csv near-identical). 304 Part II knowledge teaching carries to BNS 105.
-
The State of Tripura Home Department Chief Secretary vs Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecution, if otherwise maintainable, would lie both under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since both the statutes operate with full vigour in their own independent spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other, and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both statutes. The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act, as the offences do not overlap. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits prosecution under either or both enactments but prevents double punishment for the same offence.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder; applicable when death caused by rash or negligent driving with knowledge that act is likely to cause death
-
Chherturam @ Chainu vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, 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: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - imprisonment up to life or fine
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - the lesser charge framed by trial court; the Court held that determination between Section 302 and 304 should be made only after full trial
-
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police officers abuse their position of authority and commit custodial violence resulting in death, such offense is a matter of grave public concern affecting entire society and cannot be compounded merely on agreement of parties. The Court must exercise discretion based on public interest and nature of offense. Even when refusing to compound non-compoundable offense, Court can consider settlement between parties for purpose of reducing sentence. Wooden lathi and batten are weapons capable of causing death depending on manner of use. Custodial violence by police requires proportionately stringent punishment to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in criminal justice system.
On this section: Causing death by act known to be likely to cause death but without intention to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death. Applied to convict appellants for death of Kashinath Naik caused by merciless beating.
-
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When public servants, particularly police officers whose primary duty is to protect law and order, abuse their official position and commit acts of brutality resulting in death, such offences cannot be compounded even with the agreement of the victim's family and the settlement of compensation, as they constitute violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and are matters of grave public concern affecting the entire society. The punishment for such violations must be proportionately stringent to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the criminal justice system. However, the fact of settlement and compensation between parties can be considered as a relevant circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence even when compounding is refused.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - applied to establish that the accused knew their act would be likely to cause death but did not have intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death. If the evidence does not clearly establish this common object, and if the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused persons (which creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version), the conviction should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such circumstances.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Applied as the appropriate conviction when death results from an act without intention to cause death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death
-
Paul vs The State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, 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: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder with intention to cause death; court rejected appellant's plea for reduction to this section
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the application of Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to explicitly invoke Section 141 IPC in the charge sheet. What is essential is that the ingredients of unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 IPC must be proven. An unlawful assembly requires: (i) an assembly of at least five persons, and (ii) a common object to commit an offence or achieve any of the objects enumerated in Section 141. The common object is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as time, place, and conduct of the gathering. Once the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object is proven, all members of that assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences committed in prosecution of that common object, regardless of whether each member inflicted a specific injury or even any injury at all. Mere presence in the unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability.
On this section: Provides punishment for causing death by act endangering life or personal safety. The appellants argued for reduction of sentence to this section, but the Court rejected this plea.
-
Gandi Doddabasappa @ Gandhi Basavaraj vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, 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: Original conviction recorded by High Court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court found this conviction inappropriate as the crime met the definition of murder under Section 300 and no exceptions were applicable.
-
Murlidhar Shivram Patekar vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, 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: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder when intention to cause death exists. Court distinguished this from Part II, noting that Part I applies when intent to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death exists.
-
Shanmugam vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person is tried for murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (common intention), the conviction can be sustained on the credible testimony of a single related witness (such as the brother of the deceased) if such testimony is found to be reliable and consistent with medical evidence and other corroborative facts, provided the witness has no motive to falsely implicate the accused beyond his relationship to the victim. Delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case if satisfactorily explained by reasonable circumstances such as travel time and necessities of informing other family members. The formation of an unlawful assembly with brutal and repeated assault using multiple weapons with clear intention to cause death constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC and not merely culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC, regardless of whether a single blow would have caused death.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - rejected by court as the nature of assault and injuries clearly showed intention to kill, not mere recklessness
-
Gudu Ram vs State of H. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Despite the sole eyewitness to the crime turning hostile, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of his testimony to the extent it is corroborated by other reliable evidence, including medical evidence, circumstantial evidence of the accused's conduct, and the absence of any plausible alternative explanation. However, the distinction between intention to cause death (murder under Section 302 IPC) and knowledge that one's actions are likely to cause death (culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC) is critical. Where the nature and location of injuries, the weapon used, and the manner of attack show that a reasonable person would know that such an attack could cause death, but the evidence does not establish the specific intention to cause death, conviction should be under Section 304, not Section 302. The conduct of the accused, including fleeing the scene, is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as consciousness of guilt, supporting but not substituting the other evidence.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder covers cases where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous as to amount to wanton disregard for human life. The Supreme Court convicted Gudu Ram under this section, finding that he had knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death even though he did not intend to kill.
-
Patel Rameshore Baburao vs The State of Manipur
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, 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: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder; the appellate court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II, reducing the sentence accordingly
-
Mina Devi @ Meena Kumari vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused person, particularly a woman, faces charges under criminal statutes such as IPC Section 304B, and demonstrates willingness to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, anticipatory bail may be granted without the necessity of custodial interrogation at the interim stage, subject to the accused's cooperation with investigating authorities and adherence to bail conditions imposed by the competent court.
On this section: Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - The charge against the petitioner; punishable by imprisonment up to 2 years
-
Vikrant Rana @ Shankar vs State Of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 304, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227, 239, and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court is required to evaluate the material presented by the investigating agency only to ascertain whether the facts emerging from the record, if taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence alleged. The trial court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material or to consider the probable defence of the accused. The standard of evaluation is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists, and the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence is not to be considered at this stage. The veracity of evidence can only be evaluated during the trial.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - discussed as alternative charge that may be more appropriate given facts
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 105
What have the courts held on Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (12 Jan 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 304, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 304 (mapping.csv near-identical). 304 Part II knowledge teaching carries to BNS 105. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2025.
Is Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 105 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 105, section 105 BNS, section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 105 in ipc and bns 105 2 in hindi. 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 Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (12 Jan 2012).
What should I read with Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 304 (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called culpable homicide, and cited as BNS 105, 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
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.