Attempt to commit culpable homicide
Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration
A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 110, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 308 Attempt to commit culpable homicide Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attempt to commit culpable homicide. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine or both. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| If such act causes hurt to any person. | Imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or both. | 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.
-
Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-8.pdf 2023-07-05. Crl A 1751/2023. Abhay S. Oka / Rajesh Bindal. Digitally signed 2023.07.05. DATE-CHECK flagged 2005-08-18 (incident date; false positive); the PDF is the named 5 Jul 2023 merits judgment isolating IPC 308: attempt to commit culpable homicide needs s.299 intention/knowledge; a bus conductor ringing the bell before a student boarded is rash/negligent → 338, not 308. Map ipc 308 cited + bns 110 successor (near-identical 0.9861). Do not pad ipc 338 (bns 125 is close 0.6904) or ipc 279 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 308 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9861). The 308 ingredients holding carries to BNS 110.
-
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-6.pdf 2020-03-18 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 407/2020. S.A. Bobde CJI / B.R. Gavai / Surya Kant. REPORTABLE. Celebratory firing. Isolates IPC 308 as the proper offence (substituted from 307) for non-fatal injuries where there is knowledge but no murder-intention; 302→304 Part II for deaths. Map ipc 308 cited + bns 110 successor (near-identical 0.9861). Do not pad 302/304/307 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 308 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9861). The celebratory-firing 308 holding carries to BNS 110.
-
Shaukat vs State of Uttaranchal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, 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 High Court had convicted under this section for injuries to Rahmat. The Supreme Court found this conviction erroneous, as the nature and gravity of injuries (incised wound 10 cm x 7 cm x bone deep with rib fracture) indicated intent to murder rather than mere intent to cause hurt.
-
Bhagwan Sahai vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution suppresses the genesis and origin of a criminal occurrence and fails to explain serious injuries sustained by the accused side including the death of the accused's family member, the court must draw an adverse inference against the prosecution and grant benefit of doubt to the accused. The doctrine of free fight cannot be mechanically applied to deny acquittal when the prosecution has withheld crucial facts forming the foundation of the case. An accused has the legitimate right to use force in defence of person when defending parents being assaulted, and such defence cannot be negated merely by characterizing the incident as a free fight between both parties.
On this section: Attempt to commit culpable homicide - High Court convicted appellants under this section instead of Section 307; Supreme Court did not separately discuss but ultimately acquitted under this as well
-
Jameel vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of attempt to commit culpable homicide (Section 308 IPC) involving grievous hurt (specifically fracture of bone as defined in Section 320 IPC clause 7) caused by use of dangerous weapon (lathi) with criminal intention and prior enmity, a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment is reasonable, appropriate, and proportional to the gravity of the offence. The sentencing courts must consider illustrative factors including motive, prior enmity, intention of the accused, gravity and nature of injury, nature and size of weapon used, and force of blow inflicted, to ensure that appropriate sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence is imposed. The burden is on the court to ensure proper and appropriate sentence as a bounded obligation and duty, reflecting the gravity of the offence.
On this section: Attempt to commit culpable homicide; the conviction was upheld under this section, which provides imprisonment extending to three years, or extending to seven years if hurt is caused; the court found that the appellant's act with the intention and knowledge that it could cause death qualifies for this offence
-
Lt. Governor, Nct vs Ved Prakash @ Vedu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In externment proceedings under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, the authority need only inform the proposed externee of the general nature of material allegations, not specific particulars or the names of reluctant witnesses. Disclosure of witness identity would compromise their safety and defeat the statutory purpose. However, the High Court should examine the entire record, including in-camera witness statements, to satisfy itself that witnesses have genuinely expressed apprehension about deposing due to the respondent's activities. The satisfaction of the authority, though primarily subjective, must be based on objective criteria and material evidence. The court can interfere with an externment order only if the satisfaction is demonstratively perverse, based on no evidence, or if the respondent was not given due opportunity resulting in prejudice. Once such satisfaction is reached by the court, it should not interfere with the externment order.
On this section: Specific offences charged against Ved Prakash in various FIRs, including attempt to commit culpable homicide, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, criminal force, mischief, house-breaking, and criminal intimidation.
-
Roop Chand @ Lala vs State (nct) of Delhi Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To secure conviction under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused possessed the requisite intention or knowledge that the act could cause death or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The mere fact that an injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon is severe, even requiring multiple stitches, is not by itself sufficient to establish such intention or knowledge. The presence of a single blow, without repetition or further attacks, coupled with absence of any other circumstances indicating intention to cause fatal injury, negates the application of Section 308. In such cases, if a sharp weapon is voluntarily used to cause hurt, the offence falls under Section 324 IPC. Furthermore, in sentencing, courts must exercise discretion by considering the totality of circumstances including the actual period of imprisonment already served, delay in judicial processes, absence of prior criminal history, and rehabilitative potential, to ensure that punishment serves the ends of justice proportionately.
On this section: Section 308 requires proof of intention or knowledge that the act could cause death or culpable homicide. The court examined whether a single blow with a sharp weapon on the head was sufficient to establish this intention or knowledge. The court held that a single blow without repetition or attempt to cause fatal injury does not satisfy Section 308 requirements.
-
Ashraf B. A vs State of Kerala Rep by Its Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal matters involving serious charges where anticipatory bail is sought, the High Court may, while declining pre-arrest bail protection, issue procedural directions ensuring the accused can surrender voluntarily and obtain regular bail consideration before the Magistrate on the day of appearance after proper hearing of the Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court, sitting on appeal, will not lightly disturb such High Court orders striking this procedural balance unless they violate natural justice or legal principles. Furthermore, when an accused surrenders and files a bail application on the same day of appearance before the Magistrate, the Magistrate must decide such application on its own merits after hearing the Public Prosecutor, on that very day itself, without unnecessary adjournment.
On this section: Multiple penal sections cited in the FIR against the accused pertaining to assault, criminal intimidation, and related offences.
-
Vishnu vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement between parties cannot be exercised in cases involving non-compoundable offences where the accused are habitual offenders with a pattern of criminal behavior or where grave crimes involving violence and use of deadly weapons are committed, as such liberal application would undermine public interest and encourage criminal tendencies in society. The power should be restricted to cases involving family disputes or private/commercial transactions converted into criminal matters where harmony can be restored, and not extended to cases affecting public order and safety.
On this section: Attempt to commit culpable homicide - applied to the alleged brutal assault with deadly weapons
-
Abbal Singh vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 308, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Questions regarding the nature, severity, and medical implications of injuries sustained by a victim cannot be determined at the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC. Such questions must be reserved for determination at the trial stage where full evidence can be examined and tested. At the discharge stage, if medico-legal evidence prima facie establishes that an injury exists and has been opined to be grievous, the discharge application should be rejected and the case should proceed to trial.
On this section: Attempt to cause hurt - The court examined whether the injuries (fractured parietal bone) constitute grievous injury under this section. The Sessions Judge found prima facie case established based on medico-legal evidence.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 that there is a counter case, that is Annexure 3 FIR in which the husband of the second respondent, the victim herein, is the accused. The offences committed in the said crime includes the offence under Section 110 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the BNS) also. The materials on record will not make out an offence(s) under the Act. Hence the trial court erred in finding that the bar under Sections 18 and 18(A) of the Act is attracted. 3 3. The request for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It …
Questions about Section 110
What have the courts held on Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala (05 Jul 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 308, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 308 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9861). The 308 ingredients holding carries to BNS 110. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2025.
Is Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 110 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 110 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 110, section 110 BNS, section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 110 in ipc and bns 110 punishment in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala (05 Jul 2023).
What should I read with Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 110, 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.