Miniaka Masuri VS State of Orissa - 16 Sep 17

1. PENAL CODE, 1860 -Sec. 302 - Conviction under - Appeal - Prosecution has proved its case that it is the appellant and nonelse had done the deceased to death - Incident occurred during the certain quarrel between the father of the appellant and the deceased and also the appellant is a party to the same -Appellant had not come to the spot to assault the deceased - No pre-meditation -Such overt act of the appellant is a ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ and punishable u/s. 304 Part-I of IPC - Directions issued. (Paras - 12 to 16). 2. PENAL CODE, 1860 -Secs. 302, 304 - All ‘murders’ are ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice versa - ‘Culpable homicide’ sans ‘special characterstic of murder’ is ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ - Detailed stated. In the scheme of the Code, even if a ‘culpable homicide’ contains the ‘special characteristic of murder’, but if the same has been committed wit...

India - Orissa

Shivaputra Mahadevappa HadapadaliasMunavalli VS State of Mysore - 15 Sep 69

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

India - Madras

Ranganathan VS State by Inspector of Police - 04 Jan 07

Culpable Homicide of wife is not murder.

India - Madras

Packiam VS State - 21 Mar 94

Only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

India - Madras

K. Rajendran Babu VS State - 23 Mar 21

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 174 and 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-A, II, 300, 299, 304, 72 - School Tour - Amusement Park - Drowned In Swimming Pool - Culpable Homicide - Case of prosecution is that children studying in classes 6th to 8th standards in Sri were taken to Amusement Park - One of students aged about 11 years drowned in swimming pool inside said amusement park - Deceased was rushed to Hospital and doctors declared him as brought dead – Held, In present case, there is an unfortunate and untimely death of a young boy aged about 11 years - This boy went on a school tour to an amusement park along with his schoolmates, and he is said to have fallen into a swimming pool and drowned to death - Petitioners who are Correspondent and Principal of school are sought to be charged for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Admittedly, Petitioners were not present in scene of occurrence and not a single witness speaks about involvemen...

India - Madras

Ghanshyam VS State - 15 Mar 04

Important PointWhere accused three in number in a sudden quarrel threw deceased from 2nd floor roof of house to 1st floor roof and injury suffered was not intended offence attracted would be u/s. 304 Part II IPC & not u/s. 302 IPC.

India - Crimes

Mohd. Rafiq @ Kallu VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 15 Sep 21

It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both crimes. This difference lies in degree of act.

India - Supreme Court

Harji VS State of Rajasthan - 28 May 96

Penal Code, Sec. 302/34, Sec. 300; Sec. 304 and Sec. 97 – Culpable homicide – Culpable homicide is murder when the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention to cause death – Culpable homicide is not amounting to murder when the death is caused while exercising the right of private defence of person and property exceeded the same in good faith–Sentence converted under Sec. 304 (Part 1) I.P.C. (Para 22 & 23)

India - Rajasthan


Criminal – murder – Sections 300, 302 and 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – accused threw victim from ‘jaal’ of first floor – when victim interfered in fight between her husband and accused – accused never tried to runaway from sight of occurrence – fall on ‘jaal’ not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – no intention on part of accused to cause injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to result death –punishment of life imprisonment reduced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment.

India - Delhi

Ramsinh Jesinh Chauhan VS STATE - 07 Jul 98

Penal Code, 1860 - Sec. 304 Part II - Accused convicted under Sec. 302 - No grevious injuries - Death from rupture of spleen - Spleen was normal or enlarged not known - Injuries inflicted from stick - No prosecution evidence that accused had knowledge of enlarged spleen - No intention to cause death - Held, Trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant under Sec. 302 & altered to Sec. 304 Part II.It is true that the cause of death was on account of rupture of spleen. It is clearly admitted by the Medical Officer, i.e., Dr. Manish in his evidence that he could not say as to whether the spleen was normal or enlarged. He also has not weighed the portion of spleen while conducting post-mortem. Even if it is assumed that the deceased had an enlarged or swollen spleen, then in that case there is nothing to infer that the accused knew about it. It is not the prosecution case that the deceased had an enlarged spleen and the accused did kn...

India - Gujarat