Culpable homicide
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with culpable homicide. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1.-A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.-Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.-The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Section 299, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 100 Culpable homicide Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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
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: s.299 defines culpable homicide (the genus): causing death by an act with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Pulicherla's factor list is the teaching tool for whether the facts stay here or cross into s.300.
-
Rajinder vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A single gunshot wound to the thigh, while causing death, does not automatically constitute murder under Section 300 IPC merely because the injury ultimately proved fatal. To bring a case under clause (3) of Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide is murder), the prosecution must establish four elements: (1) objectively prove that a bodily injury is present, (2) prove the nature of the injury, (3) prove there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, and (4) prove that the injury of the type described is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction between 'likely to cause death' (Section 299) and 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' (Section 300) is crucial: the former means probable, while the latter means death will be the most probable result. A gunshot wound to the thigh does not meet the threshold of being 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.' Therefore, conviction must be under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 IPC (murder).
On this section: Definition of culpable homicide - establishes the baseline concept with intention or knowledge elements without the special characteristics required for murder
-
State of U. P vs Virendra Prasad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused deliberately and intentionally discharges a firearm at law enforcement personnel multiple times from close range with the clear intention to hit them, and as a result one person is killed and others are seriously injured, the act constitutes murder under Section 300 clause (3) IPC, not culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC. The essential distinction lies in whether the bodily injury inflicted is 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' (Section 300) versus merely 'likely to cause death' (Section 299). When a firearm is deliberately discharged at close range with multiple rounds fired at specific targets with clear intention to cause harm sufficient to cause death, the injury is objectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, meeting the four-element Virsa Singh test for murder. The High Court was not justified in altering the Trial Court conviction based on misreading of evidence without any material support for its alternative interpretation.
On this section: Definition of culpable homicide with emphasis on clause (b) regarding bodily injury 'likely to cause death' and requirement of knowledge or intention
-
Paul vs The State of Kerala
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 culpable homicide; court applied this to establish that the act causing death amounts to culpable homicide as a prerequisite to determining whether it constitutes murder
-
Shantibhai J Vaghela vs State of Gujarat
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 culpable homicide; Court held that culpable homicide requires intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death
-
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P
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 culpable homicide - the act of causing death with intention to cause death or knowledge of likelihood to cause death
-
Gulam Rasul vs Siri Kishan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused by the prosecution is not fatal to the prosecution case where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is clear, cogent, creditworthy, independent, disinterested, probable, consistent and outweighs the effect of such omission. Furthermore, when accused persons form an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with a common object to commit violence on a particular occasion (here, election time), and injuries are intentionally inflicted on the deceased and others, conviction under Sections 148 and 149 IPC is appropriate. However, for conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) as opposed to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide), it must be proved that the bodily injury inflicted was of such a nature and seriousness that the offender knew or intended it to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. If the prosecution fails to establish this higher threshold of knowledge or intention regarding the sufficiency of the injury to cause death, conviction should be restricted to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC.
On this section: Definition of culpable homicide; detailed comparative analysis provided with Section 300 to distinguish lesser from greater offence
-
Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A medical professional cannot be prosecuted for culpable homicide (Section 304, IPC) merely because a patient dies after receiving treatment. Criminal prosecution requires either intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would probably cause death. Such mental elements cannot be inferred from the act of administering medical treatment to a voluntary patient. However, if facts establish gross negligence or rash conduct by the doctor in administering treatment (such as lack of requisite medical skill, failure to exercise reasonable care, or administering improper/poisonous injections), the case may proceed under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) which does not require the same degree of mental culpability. The appropriate charge must be calibrated to the evidence, and courts must distinguish between culpable homicide and negligence when issuing criminal process against medical practitioners.
On this section: Definition of culpable homicide - covers acts done with intention to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death. Distinguished from Section 300 (murder) as it excludes certain aggravating circumstances.
-
State of Rajasthan vs Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The doctrine of transfer of malice under Section 301 IPC applies to firearm cases: when an accused shoots at a person on a motorcycle with the intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, the absence of knowledge about the victim's exact identity does not negate the intention to cause death required for a murder conviction under Section 300 IPC. The malice attaches to the act of shooting with knowledge of its imminently dangerous nature, not to a specific person. Therefore, if the shooter acts with intention to cause bodily injury as likely to cause death, and death is in fact caused, the conviction must be under Section 302 IPC (murder) rather than Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
On this section: Definition of 'culpable homicide' - Used to determine whether the act amounts to culpable homicide as a prerequisite for further analysis under Section 300
-
Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass harm and crimes against society at large, particularly those involving supply of poisonous substances with knowledge of their lethal nature in violation of complete prohibition policy of a State, courts should grant bail only in exceptional circumstances. The gravity of offence, number of casualties and injuries, impact on social fabric, criminal antecedents of the accused, likelihood of witness intimidation, and evidence of destruction of evidence are paramount considerations that may outweigh the consideration of pre-trial detention period. An accused's role as mere supplier does not exonerate from criminal conspiracy charges if materials establish participation in conspiracy to manufacture and distribute poisoned liquor with knowledge of its poisonous nature. Parity argument in bail cannot succeed when State has challenged another accused's bail before the same court.
On this section: Distinguished from culpable homicide; Court examined whether knowledge of poisonous nature elevates to murder
-
State of Karnataka vs Muralidhar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of death caused by rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC, custodial sentences are necessary to reflect the gravity of the offense and to serve the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence. A court cannot waive custodial sentences merely on the basis of elapsed time without providing reasoned justification and without considering the severe consequences of inadequate sentencing on public confidence in the justice system. The sentencing court must carefully balance aggravating and mitigating factors with regard to the nature of the offense, the manner of its commission, and broader societal implications, particularly in cases involving road traffic fatalities which represent an epidemic in developing countries.
On this section: Culpable homicide; distinguished from Section 304-A as requiring intention or knowledge to cause death
-
Kunwar Pal vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person carries a loaded gun to a public gathering and fires it in the presence of multiple people without any clear ballistic evidence linking the gun to the fatal shot, and where multiple persons were firing simultaneously, the act cannot be attributed to cause death with intention to cause death. However, such an act is necessarily done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death and falls under Section 304 Part II of the IPC (culpable homicide) rather than Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide with intention). The benefit of doubt must inure to the accused where the evidence linking the accused to the fatal shot is circumstantial and not definitively established through ballistic or other scientific evidence, particularly when investigative lapses exist.
On this section: Definition of culpable homicide - Court analyzed this section to distinguish between intention (Section 304 Part I) and knowledge of likelihood (Section 304 Part II) as elements of the offense
-
Budhiyarin Bai vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While offences under the NDPS Act are serious and warrant stringent punishment, courts must consider mitigating factors under Section 32B of the NDPS Act, including the personal circumstances of the accused such as age, illiteracy, rural background, lack of criminal history, and awareness of legal consequences, before imposing sentences higher than the minimum prescribed. The mere residence of an accused in a house where drugs are found, without clear evidence of active involvement in trafficking, may not justify the same level of punishment as those directly involved in the illegal trade, particularly when co-accused suppliers are acquitted.
On this section: Chargesheet filed under this section along with NDPS Act sections, but specific application in judgment not detailed.
-
Patel Rameshore Baburao vs The State of Manipur
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 culpable homicide; cited to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder
-
State of M. P vs Shivshankar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person deliberately procures a lethal weapon (such as a licensed gun) during the course of a quarrel, leaves the scene, goes to his house to retrieve the weapon, returns to the scene, and fires the weapon causing death, the act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC rather than culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-I IPC, because: (1) the deliberate act of fetching the weapon demonstrates that time for cooling down has elapsed, negating the claim of heat of passion; (2) the intentional firing of the weapon at another person establishes clear intention to cause death; (3) the absence of mutual provocation, weapons on the victim's side, or reciprocal blows means Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC does not apply; and (4) the deliberate nature of procurement and use of lethal force demonstrates premeditation sufficient for murder conviction.
On this section: Definition of culpable homicide - cited for establishing the genus of offenses from which murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder branch
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.
-
… The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, as Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he …
Questions about Section 299
What have the courts held on Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code?
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (18 Aug 2006) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.299 defines culpable homicide (the genus): causing death by an act with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Pulicherla's factor list is the teaching tool for whether the facts stay here or cross into s.300. Another 14 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 299, section 299 IPC, section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 299 in bns and ipc 299 and 300. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 15 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 299 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 100 (Culpable homicide), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 299, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.