Supreme Court of India· 13 August 2026
What factors determine whether an accused's act amounts to murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 rather than culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II?
BALKU ORAM v. STATE OF ODISHA
2026 INSC 852 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2298 OF 2026
Coram: Prashant Kumar Mishra; N.V Anjaria
Answer
The distinction turns on the accused's intention, gathered from circumstances such as the nature of the weapon used, whether a vital part of the body was targeted, the amount of force employed, and whether there was any premeditation. Where grievous injuries are inflicted on the head, neck, chest and other vital parts, they manifest a clear intention to cause death, taking the case out of Section 304.
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302, s.304 Parts I and II, s.34 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Murder — Sole eyewitness testimony — Interested witness — Delay in FIR —
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Sole eyewitness testimony — Quality over quantity —
Held: Direct ocular testimony of a single eyewitness, if natural, cogent and trustworthy, can alone sustain a murder conviction without corroboration. The court weighs the quality, not the quantity, of evidence necessary to prove a fact. (¶19, 20)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Related witness — Interested witness distinguished —
Held further: A witness's relationship to the deceased, without more, does not make her an interested witness; that status requires proof of direct motive, personal animosity or other reason to falsely implicate the accused. A natural witness who is a close relative remains reliable. (¶23, 24, 25)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302, s.304 Parts I and II — Intention to kill —
Held further: Whether an act is murder under Section 302 or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I or II turns on intention, gathered from the weapon used, the vital part targeted and premeditation. Injuries on the head, neck, chest and other vital parts evidence intent to kill. (¶26, 27, 28)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Delay in FIR — Explained delay not fatal —
Held further: A delay in lodging the first information report is not by itself fatal to the prosecution's case once it stands well-explained; here, the daughter's shock upon witnessing her mother's killing explains the delay. Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence for murder affirmed. (¶29, 30, 37)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 26The appellant side has also raised the defence that this case falls within the realm of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC. In the present case, P.W.6, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 18.02.1998, found the following external injuries: “One bruise of 2"x1" on the right temporal area scalp. One bruise of 1½” x 1” on the vertex of head of left side. One mark roll 4"x1" present on the left thigh laterally. One mark of roll 6"x1" size present in the right thigh anteriorly. One lacerated wound of 1"x¼" in skin deep in the middle portion of left neck anteriorly. One lacerated wound of 1"x¼" in skin deep in the anterior aspect of left thigh. One bruise of 3"x1” over the lower part of abdominal. One bruise of 1"x2" over the lower part of chest. One bruise of 1"x1" on the right shoulder. One bruise of ½"x1" in the middle of the eye. All the above injuries were red in colour and ante-mortem in nature. Blood clots present on the skull bone beneath the wound No.1 and 2. Brain edematous and congested. Blood clots present over the right temporal parietal area of the brain.” (emphasis supplied)
Paragraph 27This Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P[^7] held that the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 of the IPC depends on the intention of the accused person, which has to be gathered from the overall circumstances including the nature of the weapon used, part of the body targeted, whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight, whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation, etc. In Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy (supra), this Court held as under:
Paragraph 28In the case before us, looking at the nature of the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased including grievous injuries on head, neck, chest and other vital parts of the body, manifests a clear intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. There is nothing to prove on record that the case attracts any of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. The plea of conversion of the conviction to one under section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC, is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
Acts & Sections
s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.304 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.300 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.134 Indian Evidence Act, 1872Art.136 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of BALKU ORAM v. STATE OF ODISHA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →