Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

2025 INSC 577

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Criminal Appeal No. ______ of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13119 of 2024) (appeal number blank as printed)
Decided: 28 April 2025
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (judgment by Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.)
Citation: 2025 INSC 577
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 299, 300, 302, 304 Part II and s. 84 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 100, s. 101, s. 103(1), s. 105 and s. 22; verified against the BNS text)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 105 (burden on accused for general exceptions) - BSA equivalent not checked

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗ Plain court copy ↗

The PDF is a copy from an open dataset of the Supreme Court's public records (see credits).

Headnote

Murder · Culpable homicide not amounting to murder · Intention and mens rea · IPC s. 300 (BNS s. 101) · IPC s. 304 Part II (BNS s. 105)

The case, in the Court's words

In the case at hand, it can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had caused the death of her two children and thus committed culpable homicide. [para 22]

The crucial question however is, whether she had the intention to cause death of her children or had the intention to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death or whether she had the conscious knowledge that it was imminently dangerous that in all probability, it would cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and committed the act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury? [para 22]

Held

Once homicide is proved being committed by the appellant, the next consideration will be whether such homicide was “culpable homicide” within the meaning of Section 299 IPC. If it is found to be “culpable homicide”, further consideration will be whether it is “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” which is punishable under Section 304 IPC or “murder” as defined under Section 300 IPC, punishable under Section 302 IPC, under which the appellant has been convicted and punished by the Trial Court which was upheld by the High Court. [para 17]
From the above extracts, it can be understood that one of the criteria to determine, in any given case, as to whether the act amounts to “murder” or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” is the presence or absence of intention of the offender. [para 21]
On the other hand, if the “intention” in causing the death or to causing such bodily injury is not so clear, the case will fall under the less stringent category of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” as punishable under Section 304 IPC. [para 21]
When a person performs an act, he is attributed with the intention to cause the natural consequences that follows from the act performed. [...] However, it can be illusive when intention is not clearly spelt out or discernible, and the same has to be gathered from the surrounding facts and circumstances and the acts of the accused. [para 23]
This legal position is necessary for both the ingredients of “actus reus” and “mens rea”, though “mens rea” can sometimes be inferred from the nature of “actus reus”, and as far as “mens rea” is concerned, intention or guilty knowledge is certainly the most important facet. [para 25]
Under the circumstances, applying the practical tests elucidated in State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (supra) and Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) it can be said that the present case falls within the third category of “culpable homicide of the third degree” as the act was committed by the appellant without the intention of causing death, and the said culpable homicide would be covered under Part II of Section 304 IPC. [para 59]

Result

Accordingly, we convert the conviction of the appellant under Part II of Section 304 IPC from that of Section 302 IPC under which she was initially convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court which was upheld by the High Court. [...] Accordingly, she shall be entitled to be released forthwith, which we direct so. [paras 60-61]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Applies the practical tests of State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382 and Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 289 (para 59).

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-103/05 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.