S.304 IPC | How 'Intention' & 'Knowledge' Determine If Offence Is Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder? Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court on Monday (November 10) converted the conviction of a man from that of murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of Section 304, noting that the convict had no intention to kill the deceased, though had knowledge that the injury would likely cause death.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria heard the case relating to a 1998 incident in Ahmedabad where the appellant, following an altercation, went to the house of the deceased, Louis Williams, hurled abuses, and inflicted stab injuries with a knife. The victim was treated in a hospital but succumbed to septicemia 13 days later.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice NV Anjaria reasoned that since the incident occurred out of an altercation, where the appellant did not have a premeditated intention to kill the deceased.

“where the appellant went to the house of the accused where he started abusing the deceased and ultimately assaulted him to inflict the injuries with knife. There was an element of impulse, anger and self-provocation on part of the appellant”, making it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, not murder, the court said.

The bench further observed “Looking to the act on part of the appellant, it has to be concluded that the accused was liable to be attributed with the knowledge that the injuries which he was to inflict by using the weapon in hand, would be sufficient to result into death in ordinary course.”

Differentiating between the intention to cause death and the knowledge that an act is likely to cause death, the Court extensively referred to its precedent in Kesar Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753, noting:

“Culpable homicide is genus, murder is its specie. The culpable homicide, excluding the special characteristics of murder, would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”

Explaining the crucial mental element, the Court further quoted from Kesar Singh:

“If an injury is inflicted with the knowledge and intention that it is likely to cause death, but with no intention to cause death the offence would fall within the definition of Section 304 Part I; however, if there is no intention to cause such an injury, but there is knowledge that such an injury can cause death, the offence would fall within the definition of Section 304 Part II. Thus, is intention. If intention to cause such an injury as is likely to cause death, is established, the offence would fall under Part I but where no such intention is established and only knowledge that the injury is likely to cause death, it would fall under Part II.”

Death Wasn't Instant

Another aspect looked into by the Court was that the death was not instantaneous but occurred over a week later due to a septic condition, leading to an inference that the death was not intentional.

“The other attending aspects which may be relevant in judging the nature of the offence committed by the appellant were that the injuries did not result into instantaneous death of the deceased. Thus, the attack by the appellant remained with the knowledge but without intention to cause death. Admittedly, the death of the deceased was after 13 days. Not only that he died while under treatment in the hospital but he had developed septic conditions in the injuries suffered by him. The cause of death was medically identified as 'Septicemia'.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, IPC, are set aside, and the same are converted into one under Section 304 Part I, IPC.

“The sentence of 14 years already undergone by the appellant shall be treated as sufficient and subserve the interest of justice. The bail bond of the appellant furnished to the Trial Court shall stand discharged.”, the court ordered.

Cause Title: NANDKUMAR @ NANDU MANILAL MUDALIAR VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1089

Click here to download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Manju Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR