LawDadi Indian law and tax information
Home / Indian Penal Code / Section 300
Indian criminal law | Updated 30 October 2026

IPC Section 300 Murder: Definition, BNS Section 101, Exceptions and Case Laws

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defined murder. Its corresponding provision for conduct governed by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is Section 101. This guide explains the four clauses, five statutory exceptions, punishment, illustrations and historical case-law references.

Current definition: BNS Section 101 (Murder).

Related provisions: BNS Section 100 (culpable homicide), Section 103 (punishment for murder), Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

Procedure: Cognizable, non-bailable; triable by Court of Session under the BNSS First Schedule.

Meaning of murder under IPC Section 300 and BNS Section 101

Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide. Subject to the statutory exceptions, culpable homicide amounts to murder when one of the four specified mental-state and injury conditions is satisfied. The distinction depends on the evidence of intention, knowledge, nature of injury and circumstances.

ClauseEssential requirement
FirstlyThe act causing death is done with the intention of causing death.
SecondlyThe offender intends bodily injury and knows it is likely to cause death of that particular person.
ThirdlyThe offender intends bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
FourthlyThe offender knows the act is so imminently dangerous that it will in all probability cause death or likely fatal injury, and acts without excuse for the risk.

Under the third clause, the focus is on intention to inflict the injury actually found and whether that injury was objectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; a separate intention to kill is not always necessary.

Five exceptions: When culpable homicide is not murder

Exception 1: Grave and sudden provocation

A person deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation may fall within the exception if the killing results from that provocation. It does not apply where provocation was deliberately sought as an excuse, arose from lawful conduct of a public servant, or arose from lawful private defence. Whether provocation was sufficiently grave and sudden is a question of fact.

Exception 2: Exceeding the right of private defence

The exception requires a good-faith exercise of private defence of person or property, exceeding the lawful power without premeditation and without intending more harm than necessary.

Exception 3: Public servant exceeding powers

A public servant, or someone aiding a public servant for the advancement of public justice, may fall within the exception if acting in good faith, believing the act lawful and necessary for duty, and without ill-will, despite exceeding legal powers.

Exception 4: Sudden fight

The killing must occur without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct. Who started the fight is not by itself decisive.

Exception 5: Consent of a person above eighteen years

The deceased must be above eighteen years and must have consented to suffer death or take the risk of death. The exception is narrow and does not make every act involving consent lawful.

Important: The exceptions are fact-specific; a claim of anger, provocation or self-defence alone does not establish them.

Punishment for murder and applicable procedure

BNS Section 103(1) generally prescribes death or imprisonment for life, and fine, for murder. Section 103(2) separately addresses specified group murder on certain grounds and should be considered where relevant. BNS Section 105 prescribes punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with distinct treatment according to intention or knowledge. Sentencing and the applicable charge depend on the facts and judicial findings.

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) First Schedule, murder is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session. A non-bailable classification does not mean that bail is legally impossible; it means bail is discretionary under applicable law.

The BNS and BNSS took effect on 1 July 2024. Earlier conduct and proceedings may remain governed by the IPC and CrPC as applicable under repeal, savings and transitional provisions. A statute's effective date does not automatically convert an earlier IPC allegation into a BNS offence.

Original IPC Section 300 wording, illustrations and exceptions

The following material retains the original page's statutory wording and examples in a more readable format. For authoritative wording and any textual differences under BNS Section 101, consult the official enactment.

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,

(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.

Illustrations

(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A

commits murder.

(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to

cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies

in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not

have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a

person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring

under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of

nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend

to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause

death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause

(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword- cut or club- wound sufficient to cause the

death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A

is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.

(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills

one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated

design to kill any particular individual.

Exception 1.- When culpable homicide is not murder.- Culpable homicide is not

murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self- control by grave

and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation

or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above

exception is subject to the following provisos:-

(First) - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the

offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

(Secondly) - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to

the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such

public servant.

(Thirdly) - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful

exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation.- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the

offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Illustrations

(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z,

intentionally kills. Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation

was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by

accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.

(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a

pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who

is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but

merely culpable homicide.

(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent

passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the

provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his

(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe

a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden

passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.

(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private

defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and

violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the

provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private

(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a

bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z,

puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B

may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.

Exception 2.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise

in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the

power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is

exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any

intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.

Illustration Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause

grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing

in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being

horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable

homicide.

Exception 3.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a

public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public

justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an

act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due

discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill- will towards the

person whose death is caused.

Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if

it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion

upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or

acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation.- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation

or commits the first assault.

Exception 5.- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is

caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk

of death with his own consent. Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily

causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on

account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has

therefore abetted murder.

IPC Section 300 case laws: Historical citations

The original page's historical case-law citation list is retained below for research continuity. These legacy references have not been individually authenticated; some appear to contain spelling, year or citation errors or duplicate entries. Verify the judgment and its current precedential status before citing it in legal proceedings.

  1. State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar 1986 Cr. LJ 155 (SC)
  2. Ganga Singh (1873) 5 NWP 44
  3. R. Venkalu AIR 1956 SC 171
  4. Nga Dwe (1904) 1 Cr. LJ 909
  5. State of Karnataka v. Gangadharaih 1997 Cr. LJ 4068 (SC)
  6. M. Suseela v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 Cr. L.J. 4390(SC)
  7. Gabbar Pandey (1927) 7 Pat. 638
  8. Gaurishankar (1918) 40 All. 360
  9. Tulsa (1897) 20 All. 143
  10. Bhagava (1916) 12 Bom. LR 54
  11. Ranjiha (1947) 49 PLR 305
  12. Karu Marik v. State of Bihar 2001 Cri. L.J. 2615 (SC)
  13. Bhola Bind (1943) 22 Pat. 607
  14. Brij Bhukhan Air 1957 SC 474
  15. Anda AIR 1957 SC 148
  16. State of UP v. Virendra Prasad 2004 Cri LJ 1373 (SC)
  17. Babulal Biharilal AIR 1943 Nag 931
  18. Rajwant Singh AIR 1966 SC 1874
  19. Sunnumuduli (1946) 25 Pat 355
  20. Dil Mohammad (1941) 21 Pat 250
  21. Garasia Rajendra sinh Jethubhai v. State of Gujarat 1979 Cri. L. J. (NOC) 68 (Guj)
  22. Dasser Bhooyan (1867) 8 WR (Cr) 71
  23. Nga Khan AIR 1921 LB4
  24. Indar Singh Bagga Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 439
  25. Charan Singh v. State of Punjab, and Lakha Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 Cri. LJ
  26. 647 (SC)
  27. Prakash Hiraman Hingane v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 2211
  28. Ramashraya and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Cri. LJ 1452 (SC)
  29. Lal Bihari Lal v. Emperor AIR 1946 Nag. 120
  30. Judagi Mallah (1929) 8 Pat 911
  31. State of MP v. Ram Prasad AIR 1968 SC 881
  32. Nga Ba Tu AIR (1921) LB 26
  33. Bharat (1920) 23 Cr. L.J. 179
  34. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 Cr. L.J. 852 SC
  35. Gorachand Gopee 5 WR 45 (FB)
  36. Emperor v. Dhirajia AIR 1940 All. 486
  37. Kanhai (1912) 11 ALJR 752
  38. Gyarsibai 1953 Cr LJ 588
  39. Sahaj Ram V. State of Haryana 1983 Cr. LJ 588
  40. Gobadur Bhooyan (1870) 13 WR (Cr.) 55
  41. Gandura Nayoko (1882) 1 Weir 305
  42. Munniswami v. Emperor 1937 MWN 93
  43. Minai w/o Hudkia v. Emperor AIR 1938 Nag 318
  44. Melvill J In R.V. Govinda (1876) 1 Bom 342
  45. Reg. V. Gorachand Gope 5 WR (Cr) 45 Peacock CJ
  46. Reg. v. Govinda (1876) 1 Bom 342 per Melvill. J.
  47. Per Peacock C.J. in Gorachand Gopee (1866) 5 WR (Cr) 45 (FB)
  48. Barkatulla (1887) PR No. 32 of 1887
  49. Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka Per Straight, J. in Idu Beg. (1881) 3
  50. All. 776
  51. Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka 2003 Cri. L J 4458 (SC)
  52. Sabjit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1983 Cri LJ 961 SC
  53. State of UP v.l Satish Chandra and Others 1985 Cri. L. J. 1921
  54. Siddique v. State of UP AIR 1999 SC 1690
  55. State of UP V. Kapildeo Singh AIR 1999 SC 1783
  56. State of Haryana v. Bhagirathi 199 Cri L J 2898 (SC)
  57. State of Haryana v. Tek Singh 1999 Cri LJ 2577 (SC)
  58. Ramachandra Obdar v. State of Bihar 1999 Cr. L J 1449 (SC)
  59. State of Rajasthan v. Major Singh 1999 Cr. L. J 1631 (SC)
  60. Mathappa Gounda AIR 1954 Mad 538
  61. Mangal AIR 1925 Nag 37
  62. Amar Singh AIR 1956 MB 107
  63. Kanhailal AIR 1952 Bhopal 21
  64. K M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605
  65. Madhavan v. State of Kerala 1966 Ker LT 112
  66. Khairati ram AIR 1953 Punj 241Lochan (1886) 8 All 635
  67. Rajendra Rai v. State of Bihar 1999 Cr. L. J. 1448 (SC)
  68. State of UP v. Lakhmi AIR 1998 SC 1007
  69. Kundarapu (1962) 1 Cr LJ 261
  70. Jamaluddin AIR 1955 Mad 1227
  71. Ram Bilas Yadav v. State of Bihar 2002 Cri LJ 978 (SC)
  72. Ram Avtar v. State of UP 2003 Cri LJ 480 (SC)
  73. Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat 2003 Cri. LJ 3723 (SC)
  74. Ghapoo Yadav v. State of MP 2003 Cri LJ 1536 (SC)
  75. Ram Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1190
  76. Bagdi Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 Cri. L.J. 632 (SC)
  77. Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2004 Cri LJ 4660 (SC)
  78. Kalpana Mazumdar v. State of Orissa 2002 Cri LJ 3756 (SC)
  79. Khima Vikamshi v. State of Gujarat 2003 Cri. L J. 2025 (SC)
  80. Sarabjit Singh and Others v. State of UP 1983 Cri Lj 961 (SC)
  81. Birbhan Singh v. State of UP 1985 Cri. LJ 1635(SC)
  82. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana 2003 Cri LJ 3552 (SC)
  83. Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana 2002 Cri LJ 4688 (SC)
  84. Vikas v. State of Rajasthan 2002 Cri LJ 3760 (SC)
  85. Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar 1999 Cri LJ 599 (SC)
  86. State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh 2002 Cri LJ 1503 (SC)
  87. Din Dayal v. Raj Kumar Alias Raju and others 1999 Cri LJ 467 (SC)
  88. Daljeet Singh v. state of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 454 (SC)
  89. Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 463 (SC)
  90. Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 1132 (SC)
  91. Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 267 (SC)
  92. Dev v. State of Rajasthan 1999 Cri LJ 265 (SC)
  93. Jinat Mian v. State of Assam AIR 1998 SC 533
  94. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1999 Cri LJ 1138 (SC)
  95. State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh 2004 Cri LJ 931 (SC)
  96. State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Muniappan AIR 1998 SC 504
  97. Ram Kumar Madhusudan Pathak v. State of Gujarat AIR 1998 SC 2732
  98. Lichhama Devi v. State of Rajasthan 1988 Cri. LJ 1812 (SC)
  99. Lichhamdadevi v. State of Rajasthan 1988 Cri LJ 1812 (SC)
  100. Vishwanath Shantha Nallapa Dhule v. State of Karnataka AIR 1998 SC 246
  101. Ali Ahmed v. STate of UP AIR 1998 SC 1232
  102. Gujjan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1998 SC 2417
  103. Pal Singh v. State of Punjab 1999 Cri LJ 3962 (SC)
  104. Pal Singh v. State of Punjah 1999 Cri LJ 3962 (SC)
  105. Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav v. State of Karnataka 2003 Cri LJ 3542 (SC)
  106. Nallabothu Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 Cri LJ 4081 (SC)
  107. Sunil Kumar v. State Government of NCT of Delhi 2004 Cri LJ 819 (SC)
  108. Karnam Ram Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 Cri LJ 4217 (SC)
  109. Mahantappa v. State of Karnataka 1999 Cri LJ 450 (SC)
  110. Kishori v. State of Delhi 1999 Cri LJ 584 (SC)
  111. Rameshwar Pandey v. State of Bihar 2004 Cri LJ 1407 (SC)
  112. State of Karnataka v. David Razario 2002 Cri LJ 4127 (SC)
  113. Shiv Ram v. State of UP 1998 Cri LJ 76 (SC)
  114. Mahendra Nath Das v. State of Assam AIR 1999 SC 1926
  115. Jai Kumar v. State of MP AIR 1999 SC 1860
  116. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi 2002 Cri LJ 1844 (SC)
  117. Om Prakash v. State of Haryana 1999 Cri 2044 (SC)
  118. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar 2002 Cri LJ 218 (SC)
  119. Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana 1999 Cri LJ 1836 (SC)
  120. Ram Anup Singh and others v. State of Bihar 2002 Cri LJ 3927 (SC)
  121. Dharmendra Singh v. State of Gujarat 2002 Cri LJ 2632 (SC)
  122. Suresh v. State of UP 2001 Cri LJ 1462 (SC)
  123. Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand 2004 Cri LJ 658 (SC)
  124. State of UP v.l Shri Krishan 2005 Cri LJ 892 (SC)
  125. Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2001 Cri LJ 725 (SC)
  126. Om Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal 2003 Cri LJ 483 (SC)
  127. Hukumchand v. State of Haryana 2003 Cri LJ 57 (SC)
  128. State of UP v. Satish 2004 Cri LJ 1428 (SC)
  129. Amit v. State of Maharashtra 2003 Cri LJ 3873 (SC)
  130. Amit v. State of Maharashtra 2003 Cri LJ 3873 (SC)
  131. Surendra Pal Shivbalak Pal v. State of Gujarat 2004 Cri LJ 4642 (SC)
  132. State of Punjab v. Gurmej Singh 2002 Crio LJ 3741 (SC)
  133. Dayanidhi Bisoe v. State of Orissa 2003 Cri LJ 3697 (SC)
  134. Subhash Ram Kumar Baid v. State of Maharashtra 2003 Cri LJ 443 (SC)
  135. Union of India v. Devendra Nath Rai 2005 Cr LJ 967 (SC)

Frequently asked questions

What is IPC Section 300?

IPC Section 300 defines when culpable homicide amounts to murder. For offences governed by the new criminal law, the corresponding provision is Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

What are the four clauses of murder under BNS Section 101?

They concern intention to cause death; intended bodily injury known to be likely to cause death of that person; intended injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; and an imminently dangerous act done without justification despite knowledge of the probable fatal result.

What are the five exceptions to murder?

Grave and sudden provocation, exceeding private defence in good faith, a public servant exceeding lawful powers in good faith, sudden fight without undue advantage or cruelty, and valid consent of a person above eighteen years of age to death or its risk.

What is the punishment for murder?

BNS Section 103 generally provides death or imprisonment for life and fine. Special provisions, including group murder on specified grounds, must be read in the statutory text.

Is murder a bailable offence?

No. Under the BNSS First Schedule, murder is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session.

Does IPC Section 300 still apply?

The IPC was repealed with effect from 1 July 2024, subject to savings and applicable transitional rules. The law governing a particular alleged offence depends on the date and facts of the conduct.

Official legal sources

General legal information, not a substitute for advice based on a particular case. Last editorial review: 30 October 2026.