Attempt to commit culpable homicide
Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine The Act came into force on 01 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration
A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he there by caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 308, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 110 Attempt to commit culpable homicide Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-8.pdf 2023-07-05. Crl A 1751/2023. Abhay S. Oka / Rajesh Bindal. Digitally signed 2023.07.05. DATE-CHECK flagged 2005-08-18 (incident date; false positive); the PDF is the named 5 Jul 2023 merits judgment isolating IPC 308: attempt to commit culpable homicide needs s.299 intention/knowledge; a bus conductor ringing the bell before a student boarded is rash/negligent → 338, not 308. Map ipc 308 cited + bns 110 successor (near-identical 0.9861). Do not pad ipc 338 (bns 125 is close 0.6904) or ipc 279 (already filled).
On this section: IPC 308 needs intention or s.299-knowledge of likely death; a conductor’s premature bell is rash/negligent hurt, not attempt to commit culpable homicide (Abdul Ansar).
-
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-6.pdf 2020-03-18 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 407/2020. S.A. Bobde CJI / B.R. Gavai / Surya Kant. REPORTABLE. Celebratory firing. Isolates IPC 308 as the proper offence (substituted from 307) for non-fatal injuries where there is knowledge but no murder-intention; 302→304 Part II for deaths. Map ipc 308 cited + bns 110 successor (near-identical 0.9861). Do not pad 302/304/307 (already filled).
On this section: Celebratory firing that injures guests without intent to kill is IPC 308 attempt to commit culpable homicide, not 307 (Bhagwan Singh).
-
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 under this section for injuries to Rahmat. The Supreme Court found this conviction erroneous, as the nature and gravity of injuries (incised wound 10 cm x 7 cm x bone deep with rib fracture) indicated intent to murder rather than mere intent to cause hurt.
-
Jameel vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of attempt to commit culpable homicide (Section 308 IPC) involving grievous hurt (specifically fracture of bone as defined in Section 320 IPC clause 7) caused by use of dangerous weapon (lathi) with criminal intention and prior enmity, a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment is reasonable, appropriate, and proportional to the gravity of the offence. The sentencing courts must consider illustrative factors including motive, prior enmity, intention of the accused, gravity and nature of injury, nature and size of weapon used, and force of blow inflicted, to ensure that appropriate sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence is imposed. The burden is on the court to ensure proper and appropriate sentence as a bounded obligation and duty, reflecting the gravity of the offence.
On this section: Attempt to commit culpable homicide; the conviction was upheld under this section, which provides imprisonment extending to three years, or extending to seven years if hurt is caused; the court found that the appellant's act with the intention and knowledge that it could cause death qualifies for this offence
-
Roop Chand @ Lala vs State (nct) of Delhi Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To secure conviction under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused possessed the requisite intention or knowledge that the act could cause death or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The mere fact that an injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon is severe, even requiring multiple stitches, is not by itself sufficient to establish such intention or knowledge. The presence of a single blow, without repetition or further attacks, coupled with absence of any other circumstances indicating intention to cause fatal injury, negates the application of Section 308. In such cases, if a sharp weapon is voluntarily used to cause hurt, the offence falls under Section 324 IPC. Furthermore, in sentencing, courts must exercise discretion by considering the totality of circumstances including the actual period of imprisonment already served, delay in judicial processes, absence of prior criminal history, and rehabilitative potential, to ensure that punishment serves the ends of justice proportionately.
On this section: Section 308 requires proof of intention or knowledge that the act could cause death or culpable homicide. The court examined whether a single blow with a sharp weapon on the head was sufficient to establish this intention or knowledge. The court held that a single blow without repetition or attempt to cause fatal injury does not satisfy Section 308 requirements.
-
Bhagwan Sahai vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution suppresses the genesis and origin of a criminal occurrence and fails to explain serious injuries sustained by the accused side including the death of the accused's family member, the court must draw an adverse inference against the prosecution and grant benefit of doubt to the accused. The doctrine of free fight cannot be mechanically applied to deny acquittal when the prosecution has withheld crucial facts forming the foundation of the case. An accused has the legitimate right to use force in defence of person when defending parents being assaulted, and such defence cannot be negated merely by characterizing the incident as a free fight between both parties.
On this section: Attempt to commit culpable homicide - High Court convicted appellants under this section instead of Section 307; Supreme Court did not separately discuss but ultimately acquitted under this as well
-
Lt. Governor, Nct vs Ved Prakash @ Vedu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In externment proceedings under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, the authority need only inform the proposed externee of the general nature of material allegations, not specific particulars or the names of reluctant witnesses. Disclosure of witness identity would compromise their safety and defeat the statutory purpose. However, the High Court should examine the entire record, including in-camera witness statements, to satisfy itself that witnesses have genuinely expressed apprehension about deposing due to the respondent's activities. The satisfaction of the authority, though primarily subjective, must be based on objective criteria and material evidence. The court can interfere with an externment order only if the satisfaction is demonstratively perverse, based on no evidence, or if the respondent was not given due opportunity resulting in prejudice. Once such satisfaction is reached by the court, it should not interfere with the externment order.
On this section: Specific offences charged against Ved Prakash in various FIRs, including attempt to commit culpable homicide, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, criminal force, mischief, house-breaking, and criminal intimidation.
-
Vishnu vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement between parties cannot be exercised in cases involving non-compoundable offences where the accused are habitual offenders with a pattern of criminal behavior or where grave crimes involving violence and use of deadly weapons are committed, as such liberal application would undermine public interest and encourage criminal tendencies in society. The power should be restricted to cases involving family disputes or private/commercial transactions converted into criminal matters where harmony can be restored, and not extended to cases affecting public order and safety.
On this section: Attempt to commit culpable homicide - applied to the alleged brutal assault with deadly weapons
-
Abbal Singh vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Questions regarding the nature, severity, and medical implications of injuries sustained by a victim cannot be determined at the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC. Such questions must be reserved for determination at the trial stage where full evidence can be examined and tested. At the discharge stage, if medico-legal evidence prima facie establishes that an injury exists and has been opined to be grievous, the discharge application should be rejected and the case should proceed to trial.
On this section: Attempt to cause hurt - The court examined whether the injuries (fractured parietal bone) constitute grievous injury under this section. The Sessions Judge found prima facie case established based on medico-legal evidence.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 308
What have the courts held on Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code?
Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala (05 Jul 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IPC 308 needs intention or s.299-knowledge of likely death; a conductor’s premature bell is rash/negligent hurt, not attempt to commit culpable homicide (Abdul Ansar). Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 308 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 308, section 308 IPC, section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 308 in bns and ipc 308 minimum punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala (05 Jul 2023).
What should I read with Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 110 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 308, 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.