Punishment for murder
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 302, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 103 Punishment for murder Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 13
- Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act s. 5
- Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015 (Single Document) s. 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act s. 12 Amendment of section 82
- Crpc 1973 s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962 s. 1
- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, English Version s. 2
- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners’ Temporary Release Act, 2022 (Haryana No. 15 of 2022) s. 2
and 1 more
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.
-
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: Punishment for murder - life imprisonment or death penalty with fine
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
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 murder - the charge from which the accused were discharged; the Court held that discharge was premature and not justified at the charge-framing stage
-
Somesh Chaurasia vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person convicted of a serious offence under Section 302 IPC and released on bail during suspension of sentence is subsequently implicated in another serious offence (particularly murder) committed during the period of bail, the bail must be cancelled as the accused has misused the liberty granted to him. The High Court must apply stringent legal principles governing post-conviction bail and cannot dispose of bail cancellation applications by merely directing further investigation without considering the gravity of allegations, criminal antecedents, and material facts indicating abuse of process. The cancellation of bail is warranted when there is evidence of misuse of liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, and the court must ensure that the rule of law is preserved and that no person, regardless of political connections, is shielded from the administration of criminal justice.
On this section: Offence of murder - the second respondent was convicted under this section for a prior murder and was implicated in another murder while on bail; the Court emphasized that conviction under Section 302 warrants stringent conditions for bail suspension
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
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: Murder - Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II due to failure to prove common object of unlawful assembly was to cause death
-
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: Punishment for murder; court upheld conviction under this section for life imprisonment
-
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: Applicable section for murder conviction. The Supreme Court enhanced the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 302, determining that the homicide was murder as none of the exceptions under Section 300 applied. This section prescribes imprisonment for life or death sentence.
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence establishes that members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons came together with the common object of committing murder, attacked family members with deadly weapons and with common intent as evidenced by slogans and coordinated attack in quick succession, all members of such unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for all murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even if not all members physically perpetrated each murder. The High Court's modification of conviction from Section 34 to Section 149 is justified where the facts establish common object rather than merely common intention. While multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders, they cannot be directed to run consecutively, but term sentences may precede and commence before life sentences in accordance with Section 31 CrPC.
On this section: Punishment for murder. Applied as conviction head for eight counts of murder. Court upheld conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 for each of the eight victims.
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and mass murder, where eyewitnesses testify to the presence of multiple armed persons acting in concert with a common object to commit murder, and where the accused are heard shouting slogans indicating intent to kill, the conviction can be upheld under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the charge was originally framed under Section 34 IPC, provided the evidence establishes the common object of the assembly and the participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of the common object is established when eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence such as recovered weapons and the nature of the attack.
On this section: Punishment for murder; applied to convict accused for causing death of eight persons
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly of five or more armed persons with a common object attacks and kills multiple persons in a coordinated manner demonstrating shared purpose through actions like shouting incitements to kill, the members of such assembly are all vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even without proof of a pre-arranged plan required for Section 34. The conviction does not become fatal merely because originally charged under Section 34 if the evidence establishes the elements of Section 149 and no prejudice is shown.
On this section: Punishment for murder; core conviction for killing eight persons; Court analyzed whether conviction should be under Section 302 read with 34 or 149
-
Abdul Waheed vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a firearm is used to inflict an injury, the person using the gun must be presumed to have knowledge and intention that such an injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and therefore the offence constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC, regardless of the specific anatomical location of the gunshot wound (whether a vital organ or a limb). This is distinguishable from cases involving stabbing with knives or daggers where an ordinary person might not be presumed to know the precise location of arteries in human limbs.
On this section: Applied to convict the appellant for murder of Abbas Khan and Israr Khan. The court held that when a firearm is used and a person is shot, the person using the gun must be presumed to have knowledge and intention that the injury is sufficient to cause death.
-
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: Murder - Defines intentional act causing death. Initially applied for conviction but later found inapplicable due to lack of premeditation and intent to kill. The court found that the death was caused in sudden provocation without undue advantage.
-
Chintamani vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person's name is mentioned in the case diary during the initial investigation by the Investigating Officer as recorded contemporaneously from the eyewitness account, and the eyewitness credibly identifies the person's role in the crime during trial testimony, the omission of the name from the initial FIR does not amount to false implication by afterthought. Furthermore, in cases involving multiple assailants with common intention to cause fatal injuries, the court need not require an explicit medical opinion stating that injuries were sufficient to cause death; the nature and extent of documented injuries, especially those involving fractures of major bones, rupture of vital organs, and causation of traumatic and neurogenic shock, are themselves sufficient to establish the causation between the injuries and death under Section 302 IPC, provided there is corroborative eyewitness evidence establishing the participation of each accused in the assault.
On this section: Punishment for murder. Applied to convict appellants of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
-
Shanmugam vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu
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: Murder - conviction upheld for intentional killing of the deceased Asokan through unlawful assembly
-
Shiv Saran Singh vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A witness cannot be convicted under Section 350 Cr.P.C. for non-appearance before court without establishing that he failed to appear without just excuse, and the court must follow the summary trial procedure prescribed under Section 350 Cr.P.C., including providing proper notice and opportunity to show cause before passing a conviction order.
On this section: Murder charge in the original case (State vs. Ram Das) for which appellant was summoned as witness
-
State Of Rajasthan vs Dharam Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only when the judgment suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or when no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt beyond reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence on record. In the present case, the trial court's acquittal was a possible view based on the evidence, and therefore the appellate court cannot reverse it merely because another view was also possible.
On this section: Murder; added later to the FIR; core charge in the case
-
Ganesh Reddy vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused person has a right to speedy trial and cannot be incarcerated indefinitely as an under-trial prisoner; where trial progress is extremely slow and the period of incarceration exceeds four years, the accused is entitled to bail.
On this section: Punishment 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.
-
… Thereafter, the appellant called his friends Vishal and Akash (juvenile at the time of incident) for helping him in the disposal of the dead body. The appellant was found guilty for the commission of the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC" for brevity) and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. His friend Vishal was also found guilty for the commission of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Both the convicts had preferred separate …
-
… No. 24862 of 2022. 11. At the outset, relevant facts may be briefly noted. 12. Respondent No. 2 is an accused in Crime Case No. 80 of 2021 registered before the Medical College Police Station, Meerut under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Crime Case No. 97/ 2021 registered before the same police station under Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 ('Arms Act' for short). Natural guardian/mother of respondent No. 2 filed applications before the JJB relating to both the crime cases to declare …
-
… No. 24862 of 2022. 11. At the outset, relevant facts may be briefly noted. 12. Respondent No. 2 is an accused in Crime Case No. 80 of 2021 registered before the Medical College Police Station, Meerut under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Crime Case No. 97/ 2021 registered before the same police station under Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 ('Arms Act' for short). Natural guardian/mother of respondent No. 2 filed applications before the JJB relating to both the crime cases to declare …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument states that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.
Questions about Section 302
What have the courts held on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?
Chherturam @ Chainu vs The State of Chhattisgarh (13 Sep 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Punishment for murder - life imprisonment or death penalty with fine. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 302 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 302, section 302 IPC, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 302 in bns and ipc 302 punishment. 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 Chherturam @ Chainu vs The State of Chhattisgarh (13 Sep 2022).
What should I read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
13 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 103 (Punishment for murder), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there is one: most recently Notification regarding amendment in the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, 1964. (2021).
When did Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called murder, and cited as IPC 302, 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.