Author: Tanishka Shakya, Symbiosis Law School.
To the Point
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) continues to maintain a subtle but crucial difference between Culpable Homicide (Section 100) and Murder (Section 101). Although it has been well established that all murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not necessarily murders, the actual dilemma is to establish when culpable homicide reaches the boundary into murder.
This change will be mostly determined by the extent of the mens rea, i.e., whether the accused merely had knowledge that there would be a likelihood of death or he had clear intention to kill the person. There are also special characteristics that have to be checked by the courts: premeditation, extreme brutality, or imminence and certainty of death.
The recent judicial trends show that the appellate courts become more cautious. In cases when the prosecution cannot prove that there was a particular intention to kill, or where the exceptions of sudden fight or grave and sudden provocation are relevant, murder convictions have often been reversed and changed into culpable homicide.
Use of Legal Jargon
Mens rea- The mental element or “guilty mind” that goes hand in hand with the act, such as intention or knowledge.
Actus reus- Conduct that results in death or the physical act.
Genus and Species- A legal classification in the law where culpable homicide is the genus (large category) and murder is the species (aggravated category).
Special Characteristics- Aggravating circumstances include high level of imminence of danger or certainty of death which raise culpable homicide to murder.
Conversion- Appellate: through conversion, when a court of appeal reverses a conviction and imposes another charge on an already convicted offender through the reconsideration of the facts and law.
Abstract
This paper explores the legal context of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with particular focus on the subtle difference between the offences of murder and culpable homicide. It brings into sharp relief the thin and otherwise blurred distinction between these two types of crime, and emphasizing the judicial distinction between mere likelihood of death and certainty or imminence of death caused by the act of an accused.
The article illustrates through the example of recent judgments of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts that were outlined during (2024-2025) that courts always struggle with the vagueness of the concept of mens rea, particularly in cases that are borderline, where intention and knowledge can intertwine. It is revealed in the analysis that appellate courts are becoming more cautious and fact-sensitive approach, ensuring that criminal liability is not aggravated unless intention to cause death or such bodily injury that is enough to result in death is sufficiently proven in the ordinary course of nature.
Further, the paper provides a practical guide to legal practitioners by looking at the decisive factors that include the nature of weapon that was used, the number and location of injuries, the degree of force used and the surrounding circumstances, such as sudden provocation, no premeditation, or heat of passion during a sudden fight.
The Proof (Doctrinal and Statutory Foundation)
1. The Statutory Framework
The BNS maintains the two-tier structure of the Indian Penal Code by renumbering the provisions:
Section 100 BNS (Culpable Homicide):
Causing death with
The intention of causing death, or
The intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death, or
The knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
Section 101 BNS (Murder):
Culpable homicide becomes murder when the act is done with
The intention of causing death, or
Bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
An act so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death.
2. The Judicial “Probability” Test.
Courts have often ruled that the difference between murder and culpable homicide is one of degree rather than kind:
“Likely to cause death” – Culpable Homicide
“Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”- Murder
Therefore, the greater the amount of probability and certainty of death, the stronger the case for murder.
3. Practical Proofs considered by Courts.
Courts consider a chain of circumstances, which include:
Motive: Was there prior hostility, planning or intention?
Weapon Used: Was it lethal in nature or was it an impulsive action?
Nature and Location of Injury: Was the injury aimed at a vital organ?
Exceptions:
Grave and sudden provocation.
Sudden fight.
Absence of cruelty or undue advantage.
(This provision is known as the exceptions to Section 101 BNS.)
Case Laws
State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya.
This landmark judgment established that the degree of probability of death is the determining factor. High probability is an indication of murder, whereas a simple likelihood is an indication of culpable homicide.
Vineet Kumar & Others v. State of Punjab
The Supreme Court emphasized that the intention to murder could not be assumed only because people died. The prosecution should also be able to prove the state of mind that is necessary to satisfy the murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court Trends (2024–2025)
Recent judgment have consistently converted murder charges to culpable homicide in cases involving a single blow during a heated exchange, citing absence of premeditation and cruelty.
Bombay High Court (2025)
The court used the provisions of BNS and explained that in situations whereby the accused acted with knowledge but not intention, the punishment should not be that of murder but under the provisions of Section 105 BNS.
Detailed Explanation
Concept
Culpable Homicide (Section 100)
Murder
(section 101)
Intention
Injury likely to cause death
Intention to cause death
Knowledge
Likelihood of death
Imminent danger / certainty
Punishment
Section 105-
If done with intent: life imprisonment or 5-10 years + fine (minimum sentence of 5 years).
If done with knowledge: imprisonment up to 10 years
+ fine.
Section 103- Death or life imprisonment + fine
Why This Distinction Is a Judicial Dilemma
The dilemma arises in borderline cases. For instance, if a person strikes another on the head with a stick during a street brawl, the court must determine whether the accused intended to kill or merely knew the act was dangerous. Judges effectively step into the role of psychologists, inferring mens rea from conduct, circumstances, and aftermath.
Recent judicial philosophy reflects restraint: unless the act is brutal, calculated, or clearly intentional, courts tend to lean toward culpable homicide.
Conclusion
Whether the act is murder or culpable homicide, it remains one of the most confusing and most litigated questions in the Indian criminal jurisprudence. Although renumbering and revisioning the penal framework, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, intentionally maintains this subtle distinction to make criminal liability proportionate to the extent of moral liability.
This distinction, as judicial interpretation reveals, is not established solely due to the outcome, which is death, but the mental state of the accused at the time of the act. The courts must scrutinize intention, knowledge, the circumstances around, the type of weapon employed and how the crime was carried out with great care. The situations that border on issues related to sudden fights or even a single blow necessitate the judges to find mens rea within conduct, other than within direct evidence, and thus such an undertaking is delicately sensitive.
Recent judicial developments exhibit a restraint and moderation in attitude. The appellate courts have been unwilling to automatically set all homicides as murder especially in situations where there is no evidence of a premeditated act of killing, cruelty, or death is certain. This is indicative of a larger philosophy of the judiciary, which reserves the harshest punishment to offenses that demonstrate the most culpable sense, and where culpable homicide is permitted to act as a correction to deaths which occur as a result of sudden passion, impulsive behaviour, or lower degree of intent.
In essence, the “thin line” between murder and culpable homicide under the BNS is not a technical difference but rather a moral and legal boundary. Its prudent use renders fairness to criminal justice and the premise on which the major tenet of punishment should be proportionate to both the act and the intent behind it.
FAQS
Q1: Can a single blow amount to murder?
– Yes, if it is inflicted with extreme force on a vital organ using a lethal weapon and clearly indicates an intention to kill.
Q2: How does a “sudden fight” reduce murder to culpable homicide?
– If the act occurs without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without cruelty or undue advantage, it falls under the statutory exceptions.
Q3: Is punishment for culpable homicide always lower?
– Generally yes. While life imprisonment is possible, culpable homicide allows for reduced sentences such as fixed-term imprisonment.
Q4: Does the BNS change the exceptions under IPC Section 300?
– No. The BNS substantially retains the five classic exceptions that reduce murder to culpable homicide.
