Culpable Homicide vs Murder under BNS: Sections 100, 101, 105

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, culpable homicide is defined in Section 100 (old Section 299 IPC) and murder in Section 101 (old Section 300 IPC). Every murder is culpable homicide, but not every culpable homicide is murder. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is punished under Section 105 BNS (old Section 304 IPC), which now carries a minimum of five years in its first part.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

Section 100 BNS: culpable homicide

A person commits culpable homicide when he causes death by doing an act with any one of three mental states:

• intention of causing death;
• intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
• knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.

The explanations keep the old rules. Accelerating the death of someone already suffering from a disease is treated as causing death. Death is treated as caused by the injury even if proper treatment might have saved the victim. Killing a child in the mother’s womb is not culpable homicide, but causing the death of a living child after any part of it has been brought forth may be, even if the child has not breathed.

Section 101 BNS: murder

Culpable homicide becomes murder, unless an exception applies, when the act is done:

1. with the intention of causing death;
2. with the intention of causing bodily injury which the offender knows is likely to cause the death of that particular person;
3. with the intention of causing bodily injury “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”; or
4. with knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, and it is done without any excuse.

The five exceptions

Even if a clause of Section 101 is met, the offence drops to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in these cases:

1. Grave and sudden provocation that deprives the offender of self-control, provided it was not sought by him or given by a lawful act or in lawful private defence.
2. Exceeding private defence in good faith and without premeditation.
3. Public servant exceeding lawful powers in good faith, believing the act necessary for his duty, and without ill-will.
4. Sudden fight in the heat of passion, without premeditation, undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct.
5. Consent of the deceased, who must be above eighteen years of age.

The real difference: degree of probability

The best way to understand the two sections is the classic comparison from Reg. v. Govinda (1876), adopted by the Supreme Court. Each clause of murder is a sharper version of a clause of culpable homicide:

“Likely” means death is possible or probable. “Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature” and “imminently dangerous” mean death is highly probable. The higher the probability of death, the closer the case is to murder.

Section 105 BNS: punishment and what changed

• Part I (act done with intention to cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death): life imprisonment, or imprisonment of not less than five years extending to ten years, and fine. Section 304 Part I IPC had no five-year minimum. This is the main change.
• Part II (act done with knowledge, but without such intention): imprisonment up to ten years and fine. The IPC allowed imprisonment, or fine, or both.
• The definitions in Sections 100 and 101 are substantially the same as Sections 299 and 300 IPC, so the old case law continues to apply.

Important case law

• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465: Explained clause 3 of murder. The prosecution must prove that an injury was present, that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury, and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Whether the accused knew it was so serious is irrelevant.
• State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382: Approved the Govinda comparison and explained the three degrees of culpable homicide, with murder as the gravest form.
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605: Laid down the test for grave and sudden provocation: whether a reasonable person of the same class of society, placed in the accused’s situation, would lose self-control. A cooling-off period defeats the exception.

Common confusions

• Section 101 vs Section 103: 101 defines murder; 103 punishes it.
• Section 105 vs Section 106: 105 needs intention or knowledge. 106 (old 304A) covers death by a rash or negligent act where there is no such intention or knowledge.
• Exceptions apply to murder only: They do not make the act lawful. They only reduce the offence to Section 105.

For the general public: what to do

Whether a killing is charged as murder or culpable homicide is decided first by the police in the charge sheet and finally by the Court of Session. Families of the victim can file a protest petition if the charge appears diluted. The accused can argue at the stage of framing of charge that an exception applies. Keep the FIR, post-mortem report and witness details; the nature of injuries in the post-mortem often decides the clause.

Exam angle

• Match: 299 = 100, 300 = 101, 302 = 103, 304 = 105, 304A = 106.
• New five-year minimum in Section 105 Part I is a likely MCQ.
• Virsa Singh four-step test for clause 3 of murder.
• Nanavati: reasonable man test and cooling-off period.
• Exception 5: consent of a person above eighteen years.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between culpable homicide and murder?

Both involve causing death with intention or knowledge. Murder requires a higher degree of probability of death and the absence of any of the five exceptions.

What is the new section for 304 IPC?

Section 304 IPC is now Section 105 BNS. Part I carries life, or five to ten years, with fine.

Which BNS section defines murder?

Section 101 BNS defines murder. Section 103 provides its punishment.

Is Section 105 BNS bailable?

No. It is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session.

Is killing in a sudden fight murder?

Not if there was no premeditation, it happened in the heat of passion, and the offender took no undue advantage or acted cruelly. It then falls under Section 105.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 100, 101, 103 and 105 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: First Schedule
• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
• State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.