Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with the intention to cause death or with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. Under Indian law, murder is defined in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and punished under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 BNS) with death or imprisonment for life, along with a fine.
Legal definition
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines murder by reference to culpable homicide:
Section 300: Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or —
Firstly — If the act is done with the intention of causing death; or
Secondly — If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or
Thirdly — If it 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
Fourthly — If the person committing the act 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.
The punishment under Section 302 IPC is death or imprisonment for life, and also fine. This is one of the few offences under Indian law that carries the death penalty.
Section 300 also contains five exceptions that reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: (1) grave and sudden provocation; (2) exceeding the right of private defence in good faith; (3) acting as a public servant in good faith; (4) sudden fight without premeditation; and (5) consent of the victim (applicable to persons above 18 years).
New law equivalent: Under the BNS, 2023, Section 101 defines murder in substantially identical terms, and Section 103 prescribes the same punishment — death, imprisonment for life, and fine. The five exceptions are retained in the same form.
How courts have interpreted this term
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465]
Justice Vivian Bose, writing for the Supreme Court, laid down the authoritative test for murder under the third clause of Section 300 — the "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" test. The Court held that four questions must be answered: (1) Was there a bodily injury? (2) What was the nature of that injury? (3) Was the injury intended (not accidental or unintentional)? (4) Was the injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death? If all four are answered affirmatively, the offence is murder under Clause Thirdly, regardless of whether the accused actually intended to kill.
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1962 SC 605]
This landmark case addressed the exception of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court held that provocation must be both grave and sudden, and that the retaliation must be proportionate. The Court further held that the test of provocation is whether a reasonable person, placed in the same circumstances, would have been so provoked as to lose self-control. A "cooling off" period negates the defence. The case also established that the Indian test for provocation is the "reasonable person" standard.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684]
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty for murder. The Court held that the death sentence should be imposed only in the "rarest of rare cases" and laid down a framework requiring the court to weigh both aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty.
Types of murder
While the IPC does not create formal sub-categories of murder, the four clauses of Section 300 reflect different mental states:
- Clause First — Intentional killing: The accused intended to cause death. This is the most straightforward category.
- Clause Second — Intentional infliction of known-fatal injury: The accused intended a specific injury that they personally knew would be fatal to the victim.
- Clause Third — Intentional infliction of objectively-fatal injury: The accused intended a bodily injury that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (the Virsa Singh test).
- Clause Fourth — Imminently dangerous act: The accused committed an act so dangerous that death was a virtual certainty, without any excuse for taking such risk.
Why this matters
The distinction between murder (Section 300/302 IPC) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 299/304 IPC) is one of the most frequently litigated questions in Indian criminal law. The difference determines whether the accused faces the death penalty or life imprisonment (for murder) versus imprisonment up to 10 years or life imprisonment (for culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The five exceptions under Section 300 provide the crucial borderline.
For practitioners, the primary litigation strategy in murder trials often centres on two questions: first, whether the prosecution has proved the specific clause of Section 300 beyond reasonable doubt; and second, whether any of the five exceptions apply to reduce the offence to Section 304. The defence frequently invokes Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) or Exception 4 (sudden fight) to achieve this reduction.
The "rarest of rare" doctrine from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab governs death penalty sentencing. The court must consider the crime test (nature of the crime), the criminal test (characteristics of the accused), and the proportionality test before choosing between death and life imprisonment.
Related terms
Parent concept:
Related offences:
Related procedures:
Frequently asked questions
What is the punishment for murder in India?
Under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 BNS), the punishment is death or imprisonment for life, and also fine. The death penalty is imposed only in the "rarest of rare cases" following the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).
What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?
Murder under Section 300 IPC is a species of the genus culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC. The distinction lies in the degree of intention and knowledge. Murder requires a higher degree of mens rea — either the intention to cause death, or the intention to cause an injury known or objectively sufficient to cause death, or knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous.
Is murder a bailable offence?
No. Murder under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 BNS) is a non-bailable, cognizable, and non-compoundable offence. Bail is discretionary and is typically difficult to obtain, though the Supreme Court has granted bail in murder cases involving prolonged incarceration or weak prosecution evidence.
Can a murder charge be reduced to culpable homicide during trial?
Yes. If the court finds that one of the five exceptions under Section 300 applies (grave provocation, exceeding private defence, public servant acting in good faith, sudden fight, or consent), the offence is reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 IPC (Section 105 BNS).
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.