Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder: IPC 304 to BNS 105, the Five Exceptions and the Test (2026)

In India, a death is punished under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — formerly Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — when it is culpable homicide under Section 100 but not murder: no murder clause in Section 101 is proved, or one of its five Exceptions applies. Only the punishment changed.

This page explains how a case reaches Section 105. For the sentence — the five-year minimum and the Part I / Part II ranges — see the punishment page.

At a glance

	Old law — IPC	New law — BNS
Sections	s.299 (culpable homicide), s.300 (murder and Exceptions), s.301, s.304 (punishment)	s.100, s.101, s.102, s.105
Offence in one line	Culpable homicide outside the four limbs of s.300, or within an Exception	Culpable homicide outside clauses (a)–(d) of s.101, or within an Exception
Punishment	Life, or up to 10 years, and fine (intention); up to 10 years, or fine, or both (knowledge)	Life, or 5–10 years, and fine (intention); up to 10 years and fine (knowledge)
Cognizable / bailable / triable by	Cognizable, non-bailable, Court of Session (CrPC First Schedule, both limbs)	Cognizable, non-bailable, Court of Session (BNSS First Schedule, both limbs)
Change type	—	Modified — definitions carried over (s.100 identical); punishment changed

What changed

Identical — BNS s.100 = IPC s.299, including its three illustrations and three Explanations.
Identical — BNS s.102 = IPC s.301 (transferred intent).
Minor edit — Murder limbs become clauses. IPC s.300's unlabelled first limb, "2ndly", "3rdly" and "4thly" become clauses (a)–(d), each repeating "if the act by which the death is caused is done".
Minor edit — Exception 1 provisos. The three provisos ("First", "Secondly", "Thirdly") become one proviso with items (a)–(c); the conditions are the same. The IPC's sub-heading "When culpable homicide is not murder" is dropped.
Minor edit — Exception 2 punctuation. IPC: "if the offender, in the exercise in good faith"; BNS: "if the offender in the exercise in good faith".
Minor edit — Exception 5 illustration. "Z, a person under eighteen years of age" becomes "Z, a child". Section 2(3) BNS defines "child" as any person below eighteen years.
Identical — Exceptions 3 and 4, including the Explanation to Exception 4.
Modified — The punishment in s.105 (see the punishment page).

Statutory text (relevant extract)

BNS s.100 (identical to IPC s.299)

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

BNS s.101, clauses (c) and (d) (extract)

(c) if the act by which the death is caused 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

(d) if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, 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.

How it works — the route from a death to Section 105

Stage 1 — Did the accused's act cause the death? The Explanations to s.100 deem a person to have caused death where his injury accelerates the death of someone already suffering from a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity (Explanation 1), or where skilful treatment might have prevented it (Explanation 2). Causing the death of a child in the womb is not homicide; causing the death of a living child any part of which has been brought forth may be (Explanation 3).

Stage 2 — Is it culpable homicide (s.100)? The act must be done with (1) intention of causing death, (2) intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or (3) knowledge that it is likely to cause death.

Illustration (c) shows the limit: A, shooting at a fowl, kills B hidden behind a bush, and is "not guilty of culpable homicide". Where none of the three states is proved but the act was rash or negligent, the case moves to s.106 (death by negligence).

Stage 3 — Is it murder (s.101)? Culpable homicide is murder if any clause applies:

Clause	What must be proved	How it differs from s.100
(a)	Intention of causing death	Same as the first limb of s.100 — so, on the text, such a case reaches s.105 only through an Exception
(b)	Intention of causing injury the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of that particular person	Adds the offender's knowledge of the victim's vulnerability (Illustration (b): a blow to a man known to be diseased)
(c)	Intention of causing injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death	Higher than "likely to cause death" in s.100
(d)	Knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or likely-fatal injury, done without any excuse	Higher than "likely" knowledge in s.100

If no clause is proved, the offence falls under s.105.

Stage 4 — If a clause is proved, does an Exception apply? Each Exception reduces murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder:

Exception	Core condition	Limits written into the text
1 — Grave and sudden provocation	Offender deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation; kills the provoker, or another by mistake or accident	Not if the provocation was sought or voluntarily provoked as an excuse, given by anything done in obedience to law or by a public servant lawfully exercising powers, or given in lawful private defence. Whether it was grave and sudden enough is "a question of fact"
2 — Private defence exceeded	Good-faith exercise of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeding the power given by law	Without premeditation, and without intention of doing more harm than necessary
3 — Public servant	Public servant, or a person aiding one, acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds legal powers	Act believed in good faith to be lawful and necessary; no ill-will towards the deceased
4 — Sudden fight	Without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel	No undue advantage; not cruel or unusual. Who provoked or struck first is immaterial (Explanation)
5 — Consent	The deceased, above eighteen, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent	A child cannot consent (illustration)

The illustrations to Exception 1 show where provocation fails: a killing provoked by a bailiff's lawful arrest, by a Magistrate's rebuke of a witness, or by lawful private defence is murder (illustrations (c)–(e)).

Stage 5 — Which limb of s.105? Intention to cause death or likely-fatal injury: first limb. Knowledge alone: second limb. Sentencing consequences are on the punishment page.

Transferred intent (s.102). Killing an unintended victim is of the same description as killing the intended one. So in Illustration (b) to Exception 1, A, gravely provoked by Y, fires at Y and kills Z, who is out of sight: A "has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide".

What this means in practice

For defence advocates. Section 108 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly s.105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) puts on the accused the burden of proving circumstances bringing the case within "any special exception", and the court "shall presume the absence of such circumstances". Illustration (b) to s.108 is this very case: an accused of murder pleading grave and sudden provocation. Build the record on timing and the sequence of the quarrel.

For prosecutors. If a murder clause is not proved, BNSS s.245(2) (formerly CrPC s.222(2)) allows conviction of a minor offence, although not charged, where "facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence".

For investigating officers. The Exceptions turn on facts that fade quickly: time between provocation and act, who was armed, whether the fight was mutual. Record the timeline closely — Nanavati (below) relied in part on a three-hour gap. Under the Explanation to Exception 4, who struck first is immaterial.

For families of the deceased. A s.105 conviction is not an acquittal: the offence is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session, and compensation can be sought under BNSS s.395 at sentencing.

Judgments that still matter

Section 100 repeats s.299 word for word and s.101 carries over the operative words of s.300, so on a reading of the text the construction below remains relevant; none of these judgments turns on a word the BNS changed. No Supreme Court judgment applying BNS ss.100, 101 or 105 was read for this page.

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 601 (1976 INSC 221) — 15 September 1976; R.S. Sarkaria and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali JJ; judgment by Sarkaria J. The Court described culpable homicide as the genus and murder as its species: all murder is culpable homicide, but not vice versa. It described the difference between "likely to cause death" (s.299(b)) and "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" (s.300, clause 3) as "fine but real", a matter of "the degree of probability of death" (report pp. 606–607). It set out a three-stage approach — causation, then s.299, then the clauses of s.300 — adding that a case within an Exception is still culpable homicide not amounting to murder, "punishable under the First Part of s. 304" (pp. 608–609). Stages 1–5 above follow that sequence on the BNS text.

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1495 (1958 INSC 18) — 11 March 1958; Jafer Imam, P.B. Gajendragadkar and Vivian Bose JJ; judgment by Bose J. The accused had thrust a spear into the deceased's abdomen. Under the third clause of s.300 the prosecution must prove (1) that a bodily injury is present; (2) its nature; (3) an intention to inflict that particular injury — "that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended"; and (4) that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, an enquiry "purely objective and inferential" that "has nothing to do with the intention of the offender". The murder conviction was upheld. Why it matters here: failure on the third or fourth element keeps a case out of s.101(c), leaving it at s.105 unless another clause applies.

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 567 — 24 November 1961; K. Subba Rao, S.K. Das and Raghubar Dayal JJ; judgment by Subba Rao J. The Court stated the law on grave and sudden provocation in four propositions. (1) 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 lose his self-control. (2) Words and gestures may, in some circumstances, be enough. (3) The mental background created by the victim's previous act may be considered. (4) The fatal blow must be traced to passion arising from the provocation, not given after it had "cooled down by lapse of time". With three hours between the accused leaving home and the shooting, Exception 1 was held not attracted and the murder conviction upheld.

Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 941 (1989 INSC 81) — 8 March 1989; S. Natarajan and A.M. Ahmadi JJ; judgment by Ahmadi J. Exception 4 requires a sudden fight, no premeditation, heat of passion, and no undue advantage or cruel manner. "The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor". A person who, on a sudden quarrel, picks up "a weapon which is handy" and causes a fatal injury may have the Exception "provided he has not acted cruelly" (p. 945). The Court altered the murder conviction to s.304 Part I with rigorous imprisonment for seven years (p. 946). Why it matters here: it shows an Exception 4 case landing in the first limb, which under s.105 now carries a five-year minimum for a term.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect penalties or punishments incurred for offences committed against it, and that proceedings may continue "as if that Code had not been repealed". Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a heavier penalty than the law in force when the offence was committed. On a reading of those provisions, a death caused before 1 July 2024 is tried under IPC ss.299, 300 and 304; BNS ss.100, 101 and 105 apply to later acts. Pending trials stay under the CrPC (BNSS s.531(2)(a)). See Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies.

Frequently asked questions

When is a killing culpable homicide not amounting to murder? Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, it is when the act is culpable homicide under Section 100 but not murder under Section 101. That happens either because none of the four clauses of Section 101 is proved, or because one of the five Exceptions to Section 101 applies. The offence is then punished under Section 105, the replacement for Section 304 IPC.

What is the difference between culpable homicide and murder? Every murder is culpable homicide, but not every culpable homicide is murder. Section 101 BNS lists four states of mind that make culpable homicide murder, such as an intended injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as distinct from the 'likely to cause death' standard in Section 100. The Supreme Court in Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) described the difference as one of the degree of probability of death, and called it 'fine but real'.

What are the five Exceptions that reduce murder to culpable homicide? Section 101 BNS keeps the five Exceptions from Section 300 IPC: grave and sudden provocation; exceeding the right of private defence in good faith; a public servant exceeding his powers in good faith for the advancement of public justice; a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; and death with the consent of a person above eighteen years of age. Each has conditions in its text, such as the proviso to Exception 1.

Who has to prove that an Exception applies? The accused. Section 108 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 places on the accused the burden of proving circumstances bringing the case within any special exception in the Sanhita, and directs the court to presume their absence. Illustration (b) to Section 108 uses exactly this case: an accused of murder who pleads grave and sudden provocation bears the burden. Section 105 of the Evidence Act 1872 was to the same effect.

Can a person charged with murder be convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder? Yes. Section 245(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allows a person charged with an offence to be convicted of a minor offence, though not charged with it, when facts are proved which reduce the offence charged to the minor one. Section 222 CrPC contained the same rule.

Which law applies to a killing before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS keeps penalties incurred under the repealed IPC and lets proceedings continue as if the IPC had not been repealed, and Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a heavier penalty than the law in force at the time. On a reading of those provisions, a killing before 1 July 2024 is tried under IPC Sections 299, 300 and 304, and BNS Sections 100, 101 and 105 govern acts on or after that date.

Sources

Acts and sections read (primary text):

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India, CG-DL-E-25122023-250883): ss.2(3), 100, 101 (clauses, illustrations, Exceptions 1–5), 102, 103(1), 105, 358.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (original text): ss.299, 300, 301, 304.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (CG-DL-E-25122023-250882): s.108 and its illustrations; Indian Evidence Act, 1872: s.105.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: ss.245, 395, 531(2)(a); First Schedule entry for BNS s.105. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.222; First Schedule entries for IPC ss.302, 304.
Constitution of India: Article 20(1).

Judgments read (Supreme Court, judgment text):

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 601 — corpus file 1977_1_601_615_EN.md.
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1495 — corpus file 1958_1_1495_1504_EN.md.
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 567 — corpus file Diary_156-1960_Judgment.md.
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 941 — corpus file 1989_1_941_946_EN.md.

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Section 304 IPC vs Section 105 BNS — When a Killing Is Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder