23-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL
Introduction
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified the subtle yet crucial distinction between Section 304 Part I and Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision, rendered by a bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, provides important guidance for courts, lawyers, and students of criminal law while dealing with cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This ruling is especially relevant because disputes often arise regarding whether a homicide case falls under Section 302 (murder), Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide with intention), or Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide with knowledge only).
Understanding the Core Issue: Intent vs Knowledge
The Supreme Court emphasised that the foundation of criminal liability under homicide offences lies in determining the mens rea the mental state of the accused.
Key Difference Explained
Section 304 Part I IPC applies when: The act would normally constitute murder under Section 300, BUT the accused is granted the benefit of one of the five exceptions (such as sudden fight, grave and sudden provocation, etc.). Here, the accused had intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause death.
Section 304 Part II IPC applies when: The act never amounts to murder under Section 300. The accused did not have intention to cause death, But had the knowledge that death was likely to occur. The judgment makes it clear that for conviction under Section 304 Part II, it is not necessary to fit the case into any exception to Section 300 IPC.
Background of the Case
In the present matter:
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 304 Part I. The High Court upheld the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the accused argued that:
The incident did not satisfy the ingredients of Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The prosecution could prove only knowledge, not intention. Therefore, conviction should be converted to Section 304 Part II.
This prompted the Supreme Court to re-examine the legal principles distinguishing intent from knowledge.
Supreme Court’s Detailed Analysis
The Court revisited Sections 299, 300 and 304 IPC, and summarized key legal principles:
1. Even a single injury can amount to murder :- If a single injury is intentionally inflicted and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it falls under Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC and constitutes murder.
2. When exceptions to Section 300 apply:- If the case otherwise fits Section 300 but is covered by one of its exceptions, the offence falls under Section 304 Part I.
3. Part I vs Part II of Section 304
Part I: applies when there is guilty intention.
Part II: applies when intention is absent, but there is guilty knowledge.
4. When the act falls under Section 299 but not Section 300 If the case fits Second part of Section 299, conviction lies under 304 Part I. If it fits Third part of Section 299, conviction lies under 304 Part II.
5. Word “likely” :- The Court clarified that “likely” means probable, not just possible. The test is whether a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have known that death was likely to occur.
6. Assessing mens rea:- Courts must infer intention or knowledge from: Type of weapon,Body part targeted, Force used,Manner of attack,Circumstances of the incident
7. Intention need not be to kill:- Intending to cause an injury sufficient to cause death is also enough to make the act murder.
8. No presumption from single injury
A single injury does not automatically imply absence of intention; each case depends on facts.
Final Conclusion of the Supreme Court:- After analysing the circumstances, the bench concluded:
The accused did not intend to cause death or cause an injury sufficient to cause death. He only had knowledge that the injury could likely cause death. Therefore, Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC was not satisfied.
Result:- The conviction was altered from Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.
Why This Judgment Matters:– This decision is a valuable precedent for: Criminal trial courts,Appellate courts, Defence lawyers arguing reduction of offence,Students preparing for judiciary and prosecution exams The judgment strengthens the jurisprudence on the nuanced distinction between murder, culpable homicide amounting to murder, and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Keywords
Section 304 IPC difference
Section 304 Part I vs Section 304 Part II
Supreme Court latest judgment homicide
Difference between murder and culpable homicide
Section 299 IPC explained
Section 300 IPC Supreme Court interpretation
Intention vs knowledge IPC
Criminal law India latest updates
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Case Details
Case Title: Anbazhagan vs State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550 | 2023 INSC 632
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Legal Provisions: Sections 299, 300, 302, 304 IPC
Key Holding:
Under Section 304 Part I, murder is first established and then reduced due to exceptions. Under Section 304 Part II, murder is never established; only knowledge is present. Distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial to determine the appropriate subsection.
This article cover the legal point on difference between culpable Homicide amounting to murder and not amounting to murder Explained by Supreme Court of India . further you can read here important judgements and legal principles laid down by Hon’ble supreme court of India, this article is posted by Advocate Shivaji Rathore (J&K high court jammu) for more important legal topics stay connected with us, on tacit legal we post on YouTube channel also named as Tacit Legal helpful for Law students newely enrolled Advocate in India and other states, Follow us on Instagram also, Read our articles on important Questions of Law. #tacitlegal visit my website Tacit Legal dot in search on google, this website is made from Hostinger and wordpress follow our latest updates for legal news follow us on YouTube also for young lawyers law students helpful for Advocates, this blog is written by Advocate Shivaji Rathore practicing in Jammu and Kashmir high court and district court at Jammu. The website Tacit Legal is available on Google created with Hostinger and wordpress keep in touch and read our daily articles and reporting for law students and advocates as we provide you important legal information on Tacit Legal.in
Author: Advocate Shivaji Rathore
Founder – Tacit Legal | tacitlegal.in
- Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Liability Merely Because Wife Is Educated or Has Parental Support: Supreme Court
Shivaji Rathore 04-Feb-2026 In a significant reaffirmation of women’s right to live with dignity after divorce, the Supreme - Default in Filing Written Statement Does Not Mean Automatic Decree: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC01-Feb-2026 In a significant ruling reaffirming foundational principles of civil justice, the Supreme Court of India has held
- Allahabad High Court Mandates Prosecution for False FIRs: Police Officers Face Liability for Non-Compliance
Shivaji Rathore 30-01-2026 In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgment, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus - Supreme Court Keeps UGC Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Revives 2012 FrameworkShivaji Rathore 29-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of
- Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 175(4) BNSS in Cases Against Public ServantsShivaji Rathore, 28-01-2026 The Supreme Court laid down an authoritative interpretation of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
