Law Library › BNS s. 103 › State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another

1977 (1) SCR 601 · 1977 AIR 45 · 1976 SCC (4) 382

Court

Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Case

Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1971

Decided

15 September 1976

Bench

R.S. Sarkaria, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali (judgment by Sarkaria, J.)

Citation

1977 (1) SCR 601

Equivalent citations

1977 AIR 45; 1976 SCC (4) 382 (as printed in the judgment)

Provisions

Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 299, 300 (clause 'thirdly'), 302 and 304 Part I/II (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 100, s. 101, s. 103(1) and s. 105; verified against the BNS text)

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗

Headnote

Murder · Culpable homicide not amounting to murder · IPC s. 299 and s. 300 (BNS s. 100 and s. 101) · Intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death

Held

1. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has vexed the courts for more than a century. [SCR p. 606]
2. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the key words used in the various clauses of ss. 299 and 300. [SCR p. 606]
3. The difference between cl. (b) of s. 299 and cl. (3) of s. 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. [SCR p. 607]
4. For cases to fall within cl. (3), it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, So long as death ensues from the intentional [...] bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. [SCR p. 608]
5. The expression "bodily injury" in Clause 3rdly includes also its plural, so that the clause would cover a case where all the injuries intentionally, caused by the accused are cumulatively sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature, [SCR p. 614]

Result

For all the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that the High Court was in error in altering the conviction of the accused-respondent from one under s. 302, 302/34, to that under s. 304, Part II, Penal Code. Accordingly we allow this appeal and restore the order of the trial Court convicting the accused (Respondent 2 herein) for the offence of murder, with a sentence of imprisonment for life. [SCR p. 615]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Applied in Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 577, 28 April 2025), a two-judge bench decision that quotes the 'genus and species' passage and applies the practical tests of this judgment and of Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. (paras 18 and 59 of that judgment).

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-103/02 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.