Murder
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with murder. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- 2ndly.-If it 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 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-
2ndly.-If it 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-
3rdly.-If it 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-
4thly.-If the person committing the act 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.-When culpable homicide is not murder.-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.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First.-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.-That the provocation is not 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.
Thirdly.-That the provocation is not 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, inasmuch 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, inasmuch 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 Z's 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, inasmuch 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 or 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 offender's 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 person under eighteen years of age, 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 300, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 101 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.
Referred to by 6
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 211 Contents of charge
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 211 Contents of charge
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 211 Contents of charge
- Crpc 1973 s. 211 Contents of charge
- s. 335 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation
- Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act s. 3 Prevention and eradication of inhuman evil practices and black magic
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.300 murder (the species) is culpable homicide plus a listed clause — intention to cause death, intention to cause injury sufficient in the ordinary course, or knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. The listed factors (weapon, part of the body, force, previous enmity, sudden quarrel / Exception 4) decide 300 versus 304.
-
Chherturam @ Chainu vs The State of Chhattisgarh
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
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
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.
-
Murlidhar Shivram Patekar vs State of Maharashtra
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.
-
Surender Singh vs State (NCT Of Delhi)
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
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
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.
-
Raghbir Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence is a defensive right available only when circumstances clearly justify it and cannot be used as pretext for vindictive or aggressive purposes. While a person facing reasonable apprehension of threat cannot be expected to modulate defence step-by-step with arithmetical exactitude in the heat of moment, and situations must be pragmatically viewed without hyper-technical scrutiny, an accused must establish on preponderance of probabilities that the assault was necessity for warding off attack or forestalling reasonable apprehension. When an accused fails to fully establish self-defence plea but the facts show assault occurred in course of sudden quarrel without premeditation using non-lethal weapons, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies, reducing offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC), with custodial sentence appropriately reflecting the seriousness of causing death by dangerous act.
On this section: Defines culpable homicide and provides exception for death caused in course of sudden quarrel without premeditation; applied to reduce murder conviction to culpable homicide.
-
Dattatraya vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An act of pouring kerosene on a spouse during a sudden domestic quarrel in the heat of passion, without premeditation, constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC rather than murder under Section 302 IPC, when the offender lacks the intention to cause death despite having knowledge that such an act could cause death. The fourth exception to Section 300 IPC applies to such acts, and the offender's attempt to mitigate the harm (such as trying to extinguish the fire) further demonstrates the absence of intention to kill.
On this section: Definition of murder; the fourth exception to Section 300 was applied to determine that the act did not constitute murder as it was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without undue advantage or cruel manner.
-
Anil Kumar vs The State Of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An offender cannot claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) merely by establishing absence of premeditation or sudden provocation. The exception requires that the offender must not take undue advantage of the situation. When an offender deliberately exploits a vulnerable situation (such as when the victim is drenched in kerosene) to cause death, the act constitutes murder with premeditated intent, and the offender is not entitled to the benefit of the exception.
On this section: Definition of murder - the court analyzed whether the appellant's act constituted murder as defined under this section
-
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 'murder' with four clauses - The Supreme Court analyzed whether the facts fell within any of the four clauses defining murder, particularly examining if the act was imminently dangerous knowledge
-
Baban Bandu Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a sudden quarrel arises between parties without premeditation, and assault occurs in the heat of passion with mutual provocation and engagement, even if resulting in death, the offense is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC rather than murder under Section 302 IPC, provided the assailant has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC depends on the proved facts of each case, and a single blow, though severe, does not necessarily establish premeditation when the fight was truly sudden.
On this section: Covers cases where the accused is suddenly deprived of self-control; discussed in contrast to Exception 4
-
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 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
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
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.
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.
-
… RAVIKUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.845 of 2013 whereby and whereunder it confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the "IPC") punishable under Section 302, IPC, 201 and 498A of the IPC, in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2012 and the sentences imposed therefor. 2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is as hereunder: - The marriage between the …
-
… (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from …
-
… (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from …
Questions about Section 300
What have the courts held on Section 300 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.300 murder (the species) is culpable homicide plus a listed clause — intention to cause death, intention to cause injury sufficient in the ordinary course, or knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. The listed factors (weapon, part of the body, force, previous enmity, sudden quarrel / Exception 4) decide 300 versus 304. 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 300 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 300, section 300 IPC, section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 300 in bns and ipc 300 and 302. 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 300 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 101 (Murder), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 300, 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
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
- 350. Criminal force667 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.