Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing de 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Section 304, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 105 Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 12
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- 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. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act s. 12 Amendment of section 82
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act s. 30
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2012-01-12 (not same-date order-10 ROP). Lodha/Khehar. Drunk driving that kills can be 304 Part II (knowledge that the act is likely to cause death) and not merely 304A rashness; 304 and 304A can be framed together in the alternative. Fills IPC 304 / BNS 105 (304A is already in combined via Jacob Mathew). Do not map 299 (definition of culpable homicide is not the ratio).
On this section: Fatal drunk driving can be s.304 Part II (knowledge that the act is likely to cause death), not merely 304A rashness.
-
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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder - the lesser charge framed by trial court; the Court held that determination between Section 302 and 304 should be made only after full trial
-
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: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Applied as the appropriate conviction when death results from an act without intention to cause death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death
-
Paul vs The State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act amounts to culpable homicide and falls within any of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC, and the accused fails to establish that the case falls within any of the five exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC, the offence constitutes murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The burden on the accused to prove exceptions is by preponderance of probability, but the prosecution burden to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt never shifts. An accused cannot escape the consequences of an act attracting the ingredients of murder by merely pointing to Section 304 IPC. The fact that a false case is set up by the accused does not deprive him of the right to establish that the case falls within exceptions to murder, but such exceptions must be supported by evidence on record. In cases of throttling resulting in death, the presence of injuries on the neck and other parts of the body, combined with the absence of credible explanation from the accused regarding what transpired in the privacy of the bedroom, establishes murder beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder with intention to cause death; court rejected appellant's plea for reduction to this section
-
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: Original conviction recorded by High Court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court found this conviction inappropriate as the crime met the definition of murder under Section 300 and no exceptions were applicable.
-
Murlidhar Shivram Patekar vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When death results from a sudden fight without premeditation, where the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner, and the fight was provoked by grave circumstances (such as alleged rape and obstruction of justice access), the offender is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 under Section 300 IPC, resulting in conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The absence of prior planning, the immediate and unpremeditated nature of the response, and the lack of deliberate targeting of vital organs with intent to kill are decisive factors in determining culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder when intention to cause death exists. Court distinguished this from Part II, noting that Part I applies when intent to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death exists.
-
Shanmugam vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person is tried for murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (common intention), the conviction can be sustained on the credible testimony of a single related witness (such as the brother of the deceased) if such testimony is found to be reliable and consistent with medical evidence and other corroborative facts, provided the witness has no motive to falsely implicate the accused beyond his relationship to the victim. Delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case if satisfactorily explained by reasonable circumstances such as travel time and necessities of informing other family members. The formation of an unlawful assembly with brutal and repeated assault using multiple weapons with clear intention to cause death constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC and not merely culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC, regardless of whether a single blow would have caused death.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - rejected by court as the nature of assault and injuries clearly showed intention to kill, not mere recklessness
-
Gudu Ram vs State of H. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Despite the sole eyewitness to the crime turning hostile, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of his testimony to the extent it is corroborated by other reliable evidence, including medical evidence, circumstantial evidence of the accused's conduct, and the absence of any plausible alternative explanation. However, the distinction between intention to cause death (murder under Section 302 IPC) and knowledge that one's actions are likely to cause death (culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC) is critical. Where the nature and location of injuries, the weapon used, and the manner of attack show that a reasonable person would know that such an attack could cause death, but the evidence does not establish the specific intention to cause death, conviction should be under Section 304, not Section 302. The conduct of the accused, including fleeing the scene, is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as consciousness of guilt, supporting but not substituting the other evidence.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder covers cases where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous as to amount to wanton disregard for human life. The Supreme Court convicted Gudu Ram under this section, finding that he had knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death even though he did not intend to kill.
-
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: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Core provision challenged in the case requiring positive act beyond mere omission
-
Senthil & Etc vs State Rep. Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an assault is committed with blunt weapons (or blunt side of weapons that could have been used sharply), and the deceased dies after a time lapse, and medical evidence shows injuries consistent with blunt weapon use, the criminal act amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC read with Section 34 IPC, not murder under Section 302 IPC, because such facts indicate that the accused had knowledge that their act would cause death but did not have the specific intention to cause death. The distinction between intention to cause death (Section 302) and knowledge of likelihood of death (Section 304 Part-I) is crucial; use of blunt instead of sharp weapons, when both were available, evidences lack of intention to cause death.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder; applied to appellants instead of Section 302
-
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 High Court had convicted the appellant under this section, treating the act as culpable homicide. The Supreme Court overturned this, finding the evidence supported murder conviction instead. The Court emphasized that the presence of premeditation and intent to cause death distinguished this from culpable homicide.
-
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: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder; the conviction ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court; requires knowledge that act is likely to cause death
-
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: Punishment for causing death by act endangering life; appellants' conviction altered to this section from Section 302.
-
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: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder; the appellate court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II, reducing the sentence accordingly
-
Mina Devi @ Meena Kumari vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused person, particularly a woman, faces charges under criminal statutes such as IPC Section 304B, and demonstrates willingness to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, anticipatory bail may be granted without the necessity of custodial interrogation at the interim stage, subject to the accused's cooperation with investigating authorities and adherence to bail conditions imposed by the competent court.
On this section: Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - The charge against the petitioner; punishable by imprisonment up to 2 years
-
Vikrant Rana @ Shankar vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227, 239, and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court is required to evaluate the material presented by the investigating agency only to ascertain whether the facts emerging from the record, if taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence alleged. The trial court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material or to consider the probable defence of the accused. The standard of evaluation is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists, and the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence is not to be considered at this stage. The veracity of evidence can only be evaluated during the trial.
On this section: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - discussed as alternative charge that may be more appropriate given facts
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
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.
-
… counsel for the petitioners would fairly admit that the overwhelming evidence placed by the prosecution has proved the occurrence of the incident beyond reasonable doubt, however, he would argue that it is not a case of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called "the IPC") but it is a case of Section 304 of the IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder. On this limited question we are issuing notice to the respondent, returnable on 02.12.2024. Summon the records of the Courts below. Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2024.09.13 15:49:25 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified (NIRMALA …
-
… Ahmedabad ('High Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2007 whereby, though the High Court modified the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra ('trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 292 of 2001 by altering the conviction of the appellant from one under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to one under Section 304 Part II IPC but, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years while maintaining the sentence of fine. Be it stated that, by the same judgment and order, the High Court had similarly altered the conviction of the co-accused …
-
… Delay condoned. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned senior counsel, amongst other submissions, submits that at highest, this is a case where conviction ought to have been under the second part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. Issue notice returnable in six weeks. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) …
Questions about Section 304
What have the courts held on Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code?
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (12 Jan 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Fatal drunk driving can be s.304 Part II (knowledge that the act is likely to cause death), not merely 304A rashness. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 304 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 304, section 304 IPC, section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 304a and ipc 304 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (12 Jan 2012).
What should I read with Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
12 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 105 (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called culpable homicide, and cited as IPC 304, 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.