Sample Criminal Judgment — Murder (Section 302 IPC / Section 103 BNS)

The murder judgment is the set-piece of every criminal judgment-writing paper. An examiner is not testing whether you can recite Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab; she is testing whether you can take a fact-matrix, frame the charge correctly, march through the evidence witness by witness, decide whether culpable homicide has crossed into murder, and then either convict and sentence or acquit on benefit of doubt — all in the disciplined skeleton that Section 354 CrPC / Section 393 BNSS commands. This chapter walks through a complete model judgment for a Section 302 IPC (now Section 103(1) BNS) trial, annotating each move with the authority behind it, so that your answer reads like a judgment a Sessions Judge could actually sign.

What a Murder Judgment Question Actually Tests

Before writing a single line, understand the marking grid. A criminal judgment-writing question hands you a printed fact-set — usually an FIR, the substance of the prosecution and defence evidence, the medical and forensic material, and the charge. Your task is to produce a judgment that (i) is correctly captioned, (ii) reproduces the charge framed against the accused, (iii) records the plea of the accused, (iv) summarises the prosecution case, (v) marshals and appraises evidence under heads, (vi) decides each point for determination with reasons, and (vii) passes a lawful operative order. The statutory command is Section 354 CrPC (its successor being Section 393 BNSS): every judgment shall be written in the language of the court and shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. A murder judgment that omits reasons, or convicts without specifying the section and sentence, loses marks for the same defect a High Court would set it aside for.

The single most common examiner trap is the culpable-homicide-versus-murder slip. A candidate convicts under Section 302 IPC where the facts, properly analysed, fall in Exception 1 or Exception 4 to Section 300 and yield only Section 304 Part I or Part II. The model below is built to flag exactly this fork. For the foundational grammar of judgment structure, see the chapter on the structure of a criminal judgment and the hub at Criminal Judgment Writing.

The Statutory Foundation: Section 300/302 IPC and Section 101/103 BNS

The substantive law you are applying must be stated with precision because the BNS transition means an examiner may set the problem under either code. Under the Indian Penal Code, Section 299 defines culpable homicide and Section 300 defines when culpable homicide amounts to murder, subject to five Exceptions; Section 302 prescribes the punishment — death or imprisonment for life, and fine. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the architecture is preserved with renumbering: Section 100 BNS corresponds to Section 299 IPC (culpable homicide), Section 101 BNS corresponds to Section 300 IPC (murder), and Section 103(1) BNS corresponds to Section 302 IPC, punishing murder with death or imprisonment for life and fine.

The relationship between the two offences is settled: culpable homicide is the genus and murder is the species. Every murder is culpable homicide, but not every culpable homicide is murder. The four clauses of Section 300 IPC — intention to cause death; intention to cause an injury the offender knows is likely to cause death; intention to cause an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; and knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death — are reproduced as clauses (a) to (d) of Section 101 BNS. A model judgment that quotes the precise clause it is convicting under, rather than gesturing at "Section 302", reads as the work of someone who knows the law.

Drafting the Cause-Title and Preamble

Open with a correctly drafted cause-title — the discipline covered in detail in cause-title, court, case number and parties. For a Sessions trial it reads: In the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, [Place]; then Sessions Case No. ___ of 20__; then the parties — State of [____] versus [Accused name], son of [____], aged [__] years, resident of [____]. A criminal case is prosecuted by the State, so the State is always the first party; never caption it with the complainant's name as the prosecutor.

The preamble then records the offence and the provenance of the case: "The accused stands charged with the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the case having been committed to this Court under Section 209 CrPC (Section 232 BNSS) upon the police report in Crime No. ___ of P.S. [____]." State the date of the offence, the date of commitment, and the names of the prosecutor (Additional Public Prosecutor) and defence counsel. This anchors the judgment and satisfies the formal contents that Section 354 CrPC requires.

Stating the Prosecution Case

The narrative of the prosecution case must be a neutral chronological account, not a conclusion. A model statement runs: "The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of [date] at about [time], near [place], the accused, on account of a long-standing land dispute with the deceased [name], armed himself with a [weapon] and inflicted a [single/multiple] blow(s) on the [body part] of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The First Information Report came to be lodged by PW-1 [name] at P.S. [____] at [time], registered as Crime No. ___ under Section 302 IPC. Investigation was taken up, inquest was held over the body, the body was sent for post-mortem, the weapon was recovered at the instance of the accused, and on completion of investigation a charge-sheet was laid."

Set out the motive the prosecution alleges, the manner of assault, the weapon, and the medical cause of death — these are the load-bearing facts the rest of the judgment will test. Resist the temptation to characterise the evidence as "clear" or "cogent" at this stage; appraisal belongs to the discussion section, and an examiner penalises a candidate who pre-judges the evidence in the narrative.

Reproducing the Charge and Recording the Plea

Reproduce the charge as framed in the operative voice the court itself used: "That you, on or about the [date] at [place], did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of [deceased], and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance." The charge must specify the offence, the section, and the particulars of time, place and person as required by Sections 211–214 CrPC (Sections 234–237 BNSS). A defective or vague charge invites argument that the accused was prejudiced.

Then record the plea: "The charge was read over and explained to the accused in [language], to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried." If there was a plea of guilty you would consider Section 229 CrPC (Section 251 BNSS), but a murder charge resting on a guilty plea is rarely the examiner's choice because it forecloses the evidence-appraisal that carries the marks. State the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution and note that the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS), in which he denied the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication or, where applicable, the right of private defence.

Framing the Points for Determination

This is the spine of the judgment and the heading Section 354 CrPC expressly demands. Frame the points narrowly and in the order in which they must be answered. For a typical single-accused murder trial: "(1) Whether the prosecution proves that the deceased [name] died a homicidal death? (2) Whether the prosecution proves that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased? (3) If so, whether the act amounts to murder within the meaning of Section 300 IPC, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or is excepted? (4) What offence, if any, is the accused guilty of, and what sentence?"

Sequencing matters. The fact of homicidal death (the corpus delicti) is logically prior to authorship; authorship is prior to the culpable-homicide-versus-murder question; and the offence is prior to sentence. Many examiners award a discrete block of marks for each point answered with reasons, so a candidate who collapses everything into a single discursive paragraph forfeits that structure. Keep the burden of proof in mind throughout: in a criminal trial the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of every genuine doubt goes to the accused.

Point 1 — Homicidal Death and the Medical Evidence

Begin with the post-mortem. The medical officer (say PW-6) deposes to the injuries, their nature, and the cause of death. A model finding reads: "PW-6, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy, has deposed that the deceased had a [incised/lacerated] wound measuring [____] on the [body part], that the corresponding internal injury involved [organ], and that the cause of death was [shock and haemorrhage] resulting from the said injury, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report, Ext. P-__, corroborates his oral testimony. There is nothing to suggest suicide or accident. I therefore hold that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, and Point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative."

Where there is a discrepancy between the ocular and medical evidence, address it: the law, settled in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, is that ordinarily medical evidence is only of a confirmatory or corroborative character and does not displace reliable eyewitness testimony unless the medical evidence makes the eyewitness version impossible. State the medical finding on "sufficiency in the ordinary course of nature" carefully, because that phrase is the gateway to clause Thirdly of Section 300 and to Virsa Singh, discussed below.

Point 2 — Authorship: Ocular and Circumstantial Evidence

Authorship is proved either by direct (ocular) evidence or by a complete chain of circumstances. If the case rests on eyewitnesses, appraise each: "PW-1 and PW-3 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 is the [son/brother] of the deceased; the mere fact that a witness is related to the deceased is no ground to discard his testimony, for a relation is the least likely to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person — a principle reiterated in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab. Their evidence is natural, consistent, and corroborated by the medical evidence as to the seat and nature of the injury."

Where the case is purely circumstantial, the governing test is the panchsheel laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: the circumstances must be fully established; consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; conclusive in nature; exclusive of every hypothesis except guilt; and form a chain so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for any conclusion consistent with innocence. Apply each limb to the last-seen evidence, the recovery, and the motive. On recovery, the admissible portion of a disclosure statement is only so much as distinctly relates to the fact discovered — the rule of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, now embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). If the chain is broken at any link, Point No. 2 must be answered against the prosecution and the accused acquitted on benefit of doubt.

Point 3 — Murder or Culpable Homicide: The Crucial Fork

This is where marks are won or lost. Having found that the accused caused the death, decide whether the act falls within Section 300 IPC. The controlling authority on clause Thirdly is Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, where the accused inflicted a single spear thrust to the abdomen that proved fatal. Vivian Bose J. laid down four steps: first, the bodily injury must be proved to be present; second, the nature of the injury must be proved; third, it must be proved that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury (that is, it was not accidental, unintentional, or that some other injury was intended); and fourth, it must be proved that the injury so intended was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Once these are established, the offence is murder, and it is no answer that the accused did not intend to cause death — the inquiry into sufficiency is objective.

Then test the Exceptions to Section 300. Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) and Exception 4 (sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion, the offender not having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner) are the examiner's favourite reducers. If the facts show a chance encounter, a sudden quarrel, a single blow and no premeditation, the proper conviction is under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC (Section 105 BNS), not Section 302. Conversely, a pre-planned assault with a deadly weapon on a vital part defeats the Exception. Write the finding both ways the facts permit — "if the court accepts X, the offence is murder; if it accepts Y, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder" — only where the facts are genuinely balanced; otherwise commit to the conclusion the evidence compels.

Dealing with the Section 313 Statement and the Defence Plea

A complete judgment engages with the accused's explanation under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) and any defence raised. If the accused pleads the right of private defence of the body under Sections 96–106 IPC (Sections 34–44 BNS), examine whether there was a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt and whether the force used was proportionate — a plea of private defence does not require the accused to prove it beyond reasonable doubt; he need only establish a preponderance of probability, and the court may also find it made out from the prosecution's own evidence.

Where the accused offers a false explanation or maintains silence on a circumstance within his special knowledge, that may, under the reasoning in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya and the line of authority on Section 313, furnish an additional link in a chain of circumstantial evidence — though it can never substitute for proof of the foundational facts by the prosecution. A model judgment records: "In his statement under Section 313, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, he offered no explanation for [the recovery / his presence at the scene], a circumstance within his special knowledge, which strengthens the prosecution chain." If, by contrast, the defence version is plausible, that plausibility is itself the reasonable doubt that entitles the accused to acquittal.

Point 4 — The Operative Finding and Conviction

Having answered the points, record a clean operative finding. On a murder finding: "For the reasons stated above, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused the death of the deceased and that the act amounts to murder within clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The Exceptions to Section 300 are not attracted on the facts. Accordingly, I find the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (Section 103(1) BNS) and convict him thereunder."

If the conclusion is reduction, say so with equal precision: "...the act, having been committed in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without premeditation and without the accused taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner, falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and I therefore convict the accused under Section 304 Part I IPC (Section 105 BNS) instead of Section 302." If the prosecution fails on Point 1 or Point 2, acquit: "...the prosecution having failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case." An acquittal judgment must, under Section 354(1)(d) CrPC, state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.

The Sentencing Hearing and the Order on Sentence

On a conviction for murder you cannot pass sentence in the same breath. Section 235(2) CrPC (now Section 258(2) BNSS) mandates a separate hearing on the question of sentence, and the Supreme Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2386, held this to be a valuable right whose denial vitiates the sentence — the hearing is not a formality but an opportunity to place material relevant to sentencing. A model judgment records: "On the question of sentence, the accused was heard under Section 235(2) CrPC. The defence submitted [age, clean antecedents, sole bread-winner]; the prosecution submitted [the brutal manner / antecedents]."

Then apply the sentencing law. Section 302 IPC offers two alternatives — death or imprisonment for life. The death penalty may be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases, the doctrine settled in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, where the Court held that life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception, to be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed" after weighing aggravating against mitigating circumstances. The five categories that guide the inquiry were enumerated in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 — the manner of commission of the murder, the motive, the anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime, the magnitude of the crime, and the personality of the victim. For an ordinary single-blow murder arising from a private quarrel, the proportionate sentence is imprisonment for life and fine, and the operative order should so state, with a default sentence for non-payment of fine and set-off for the period already undergone under Section 428 CrPC (Section 468 BNSS).

Common Errors and a Pre-Submission Checklist

The recurring mistakes that cost marks are predictable. First, captioning the case in the complainant's name rather than the State. Second, omitting the points for determination, in breach of Section 354 CrPC. Third, convicting under Section 302 where Exception 1 or 4 plainly reduces the offence — or, conversely, reducing to Section 304 where a premeditated assault with a deadly weapon on a vital part makes out murder. Fourth, forgetting the separate sentence hearing under Section 235(2) CrPC after a conviction. Fifth, treating related witnesses as inherently unreliable, contrary to Dalip Singh. Sixth, admitting the whole of a disclosure statement instead of only the portion that led to discovery, contrary to Pulukuri Kottaya.

Before you submit, run a checklist: correct cause-title; offence and committing provision in the preamble; neutral prosecution narrative; charge reproduced; plea and Section 313 recorded; points for determination framed; homicidal death decided on medical evidence; authorship decided on ocular or panchsheel circumstantial reasoning; the murder-versus-culpable-homicide fork resolved with Virsa Singh and the Exceptions; an operative finding that specifies the section of conviction; and a sentence passed after a Section 235(2) hearing in line with Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh. A judgment that survives that checklist will read, to any examiner, like one a Sessions Judge could sign. For the wider scaffolding, revisit the Criminal Judgment Writing hub and the chapter on the structure of a criminal judgment.