Quick Answer
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been replaced by Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, effective 1 July 2024. This is the punishment provision for culpable homicide not amounting to murder — the offence that falls just short of murder. The two-part structure distinguishing intention-based culpable homicide (Part I, more serious) from knowledge-based culpable homicide (Part II, less serious) is retained. However, BNS 105 makes two significant sentencing changes: Part I now carries a mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment (previously no minimum), and Part II now makes fine mandatory alongside imprisonment (previously fine was discretionary). These changes narrow judicial sentencing discretion and signal a stricter approach to homicide below the murder threshold.
What changed
| Old law | New law | |
|---|---|---|
| Act | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
| Section | 304 | 105 |
| Title | Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder | Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder |
| Part I minimum | No minimum | Five years minimum |
| Part I maximum | Life imprisonment or ten years | Life imprisonment or ten years (unchanged) |
| Part II fine | Discretionary ("or with fine, or with both") | Mandatory ("and shall also be liable to fine") |
| Change type | Modified — minimum sentence added, fine made mandatory |
Full statutory text
Section 304 IPC (repealed w.e.f. 1 July 2024)
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 105 BNS
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but 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 and with fine, 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.
Text in bold highlights the two changes from the IPC provision.
Key differences
Minimum five-year sentence for Part I: Under IPC 304 Part I, courts had full discretion to impose any sentence from a single day up to life imprisonment. BNS 105 Part I introduces a mandatory minimum of five years. This is the most significant change — it eliminates the possibility of token or lenient sentences in intention-based culpable homicide cases.
Mandatory fine under Part II: Under IPC 304 Part II, the court could impose imprisonment alone, fine alone, or both. The phrase "or with fine, or with both" gave courts three options. Under BNS 105 Part II, the phrase "and shall also be liable to fine" makes fine a mandatory accompaniment to imprisonment, leaving only the quantum of fine to judicial discretion.
Upper limits remain unchanged: The maximum sentence under Part I remains life imprisonment or ten years. The maximum under Part II remains ten years. The legislative intervention was targeted at the sentencing floor, not the ceiling.
Two-part structure fully preserved: The fundamental distinction between Part I (act done with intention of causing death or likely-fatal bodily injury) and Part II (act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention) continues without modification. This distinction, developed through decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, remains the operative framework.
Definition of the offence unchanged: The definition of culpable homicide under Section 100 BNS (replacing Section 299 IPC) and the definition of murder under Section 101 BNS (replacing Section 300 IPC) are substantively identical. The five exceptions that reduce murder to culpable homicide are also preserved. Therefore, the category of offences caught by Section 105 BNS is exactly the same as those caught by Section 304 IPC — only the sentencing range has been modified.
What this means for practitioners
For defence counsel: The five-year minimum under Part I fundamentally changes defence strategy. Under the IPC, counsel could argue for sentences of two or three years even in intention-based culpable homicide cases, particularly where mitigating factors were strong. Under BNS 105, the minimum is five years — and this cannot be reduced except through the appellate process or by establishing that the case falls under Part II rather than Part I. This makes the Part I vs. Part II classification the most consequential sentencing question in non-murder homicide cases.
For prosecutors: The enhanced sentencing floor strengthens the prosecution's hand in plea negotiations. Accused persons facing Part I charges know that conviction carries a minimum five-year sentence, which may increase willingness to cooperate with the prosecution or accept lesser charges at an earlier stage. Prosecutors should ensure charge sheets clearly specify whether the case falls under Part I or Part II.
For pending cases: Offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue to be governed by Section 304 IPC. This distinction is critical for sentencing: the IPC regime permitted sentences below five years for Part I offences, while the BNS does not. Under the principle that the accused is entitled to the more beneficial provision, pre-commencement offences are sentenced under the IPC framework. Courts must verify the date of offence before applying the sentencing range.
For sentencing arguments: The introduction of a minimum sentence may shift judicial focus towards the exceptions and mitigating circumstances recognised in sentencing jurisprudence. Courts may more frequently resort to concurrent sentencing, suspension of sentences, or remission recommendations where the five-year floor produces disproportionate outcomes in cases with strong mitigating factors.
Does old case law still apply?
The jurisprudence on the Part I/Part II distinction remains fully applicable under BNS 105.
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444 — The Supreme Court provided a comprehensive framework for determining whether an offence falls under Section 302 (murder), Section 304 Part I, or Section 304 Part II. The Court held that the distinction depends on the nature of the weapon used, the manner of attack, the body part targeted, and the degree of force applied. This analytical framework governs the identical classification under BNS Sections 103 and 105.
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 — The four-pronged test for Section 300 "Thirdly" (now BNS 101(c)) remains the primary tool for determining whether an offence crosses from Section 304 Part I territory into Section 302/103 murder territory. The test is unaffected by the sentencing changes.
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 — The principles governing Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) continue to determine when murder is reduced to culpable homicide. Cases falling within the exceptions are sentenced under BNS 105 instead of BNS 103.
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 — The Court distinguished between Part I and Part II by focusing on whether the accused acted with "intention" (Part I) or merely "knowledge" (Part II). This distinction takes on heightened importance under the BNS because of the five-year minimum that applies only to Part I.
Cases that may need reconsideration: Decisions where courts imposed sentences of less than five years under Section 304 Part I — based on mitigating circumstances, age of the accused, or provocation falling short of Exception 1 — reflect a sentencing discretion that no longer exists under BNS 105. Future courts may need to develop new approaches to mitigation within the constraints of the five-year floor.
Judicial interpretation under BNS 105 (post-July 2024)
Manga Ram v. State (14 February 2025)
Court: Delhi High Court | Judges: Prathiba M. Singh, Dharmesh Sharma | Result: Murder conviction modified to Section 304 Part II; sentence reduced to time served
The Delhi High Court modified a conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder — knowledge-based) and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (9 years, 1 month, 11 days). The Court found that the evidence did not establish an intention to cause death but only knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. While this case was decided under the IPC framework (pre-July 2024 offence), it illustrates the continuing importance of the Part I vs. Part II distinction — which takes on heightened significance under BNS 105, where Part I carries a mandatory five-year minimum while Part II has no minimum.
Veritect reference: DLHC010058082002_1_2025-02-14
Emerging patterns
Based on available post-July 2024 jurisprudence:
- The Part I vs. Part II classification remains the most consequential sentencing question — the five-year minimum under BNS 105 Part I makes the distinction even more critical than before
- Courts continue to apply the established framework from Pulicherla Nagaraju (2006) for determining which category applies, based on weapon, manner of attack, and body part targeted
- Appellate courts are still modifying Section 302 convictions to Section 304 Part II in cases where intention to cause death is not established — a pattern that will continue under BNS 103/105
Frequently asked questions
What is the BNS equivalent of Section 304 IPC? Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 304 IPC. The two-part structure is preserved, but Part I now carries a mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment and Part II makes fine mandatory alongside imprisonment.
Does old case law on Section 304 IPC still apply? Yes. The definitions of culpable homicide and the exceptions to murder are substantively unchanged. All Supreme Court precedent on the Part I/Part II distinction — including Pulicherla Nagaraju (2006) and Kashi Ram (2006) — continues to apply. Only the sentencing range has been modified.
Which section applies to cases before 1 July 2024? Section 304 IPC applies to all culpable homicide offences committed before 1 July 2024. The more lenient IPC sentencing regime (no minimum under Part I, discretionary fine under Part II) governs pre-commencement offences under the principle of beneficial construction.
What is the minimum sentence for culpable homicide under BNS? Under BNS 105 Part I (intention-based), the minimum sentence is five years imprisonment. Under Part II (knowledge-based), there is no specified minimum — courts retain full sentencing discretion up to ten years. The maximum remains life imprisonment or ten years for Part I, and ten years for Part II.