Section 103: Punishment for murder

Corresponding IPC provision

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)Decided on IPC section 302The Constitution Bench struck down Section 303 IPC, which made death the mandatory sentence for murder by a person under a life sentence, as violating Articles 14 and 21; all murders now fall under Section 302.
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)Decided on IPC section 302By 4:1, the Court upheld the death penalty for murder under Section 302 IPC and the sentencing procedure in Section 354(3) CrPC, holding that death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
• Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (1962)Decided on IPC section 302Where the charge and evidence named only five members of an unlawful assembly and two were acquitted, Section 149 IPC could not apply to the rest, but the appellants' murder conviction was altered to Section 302 read with Section 34.
• Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1999)Decided on IPC section 302The Court set aside convictions under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC that rested only on a dying declaration, because the doctor certified only that the injured was conscious, not that she was in a fit state of mind.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)Decided on IPC section 302The Court set aside the appellant's conviction and death sentence for poisoning his wife, holding that circumstantial evidence must satisfy the five conditions drawn from Hanumant's case and that a false defence cannot fill gaps in the prosecution chain.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)Decided on IPC section 302Explaining how the Bachan Singh 'rarest of rare cases' rule is to be applied, the Court set out categories of murder that may call for death and confirmed three death sentences for a series of killings.
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)Decided on IPC section 302The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and life sentence: the jury verdict was vitiated by grave misdirections, and the killing, done after time to cool, did not fall within the grave and sudden provocation exception.
• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)Decided on IPC section 302The Court explained what the prosecution must prove under Section 300, clause thirdly, IPC, and upheld the appellant's murder conviction for a single spear thrust into the abdomen that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1957)Decided on IPC section 302The Court held that no absolute rule of law or prudence requires a dying declaration to be corroborated before it can found a conviction, and upheld the appellant's murder conviction and death sentence on three consistent dying declarations.
• Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1954)Decided on IPC section 302Holding that common intention under Section 34 IPC requires prior concert and a pre-arranged plan, the Court reduced Pandurang's murder conviction to one under Section 326 IPC and commuted the death sentences of Tukia and Bhilia.
• Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)Decided on IPC section 302The Court held active euthanasia unlawful but allowed passive euthanasia, laid down a High Court approval procedure for withdrawing life support from incompetent patients until Parliament legislates, and dismissed the petition to stop the petitioner's feeding.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976)Decided on IPC section 302Explaining the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 299 and murder under Section 300 IPC, the Court restored the murder conviction of an accused who, with another, beat the victim's arms and legs with heavy sticks, causing death.

Questions on this section

8 questions in 30 of our papers cite Section 103. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. X was convicted of murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Before his conviction he had been in custody for two years during the investigation and trial of the same case. After conviction he has served twelve years and six months. The State Government proposes to remit the rest of his sentence. Does Section 475 of the BNSS stand in the way?

   A.Yes, because pre-conviction detention cannot be set off against a sentence of imprisonment for life, so fourteen years must be served after convictionB.No, because the fourteen-year restriction in Section 475 applies only where a death sentence has been commuted to imprisonment for lifeC.No, because the proviso to Section 468 sets off the pre-conviction detention against the fourteen-year period, so X has served more than fourteen yearsD.Yes, because a person sentenced to life for an offence punishable with death can never be granted remission
   Show answer

2. 2. In X v. State of Bihar, decided on 21 July 2026, the Supreme Court considered how murder punishable under Section 302 IPC (now Section 103(1) BNS) is classified under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It held that the offence is:

   A.outside both categories, so that the Juvenile Justice Board must classify it afresh in each individual caseB.a serious offence, because Section 302 prescribes its punishment without using the word 'minimum' anywhereC.a heinous offence, because imprisonment for life is by necessary implication its minimum punishmentD.a serious offence, because a child in conflict with law can never be sentenced to death or life without release
   Show answer

3. 3. The punishment prescribed by Section 103(1) BNS for murder is

   A.imprisonment for life only, which shall mean the remainder of natural lifeB.death or imprisonment for life, and also liability to fineC.death, or imprisonment for not less than ten years, and fineD.death only, as a mandatory sentence
   Show answer