Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes murder committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground, and it makes every member of that group liable to death or imprisonment for life, along with fine. The Indian Penal Code had no such provision, which is why the official correspondence table maps section 103 BNS only to old section 302. The sub-section is aimed at what is usually called mob lynching, although that word does not appear anywhere in the text.
What does section 103(2) BNS actually say?
Section 103 has two sub-sections, and the second is complete in itself: it names the offender (a group), the act (murder), the motive (a listed ground) and the punishment. Break it into four elements before you try to apply it.
- A group of five or more persons. Five is the same number used for an unlawful assembly in section 189 and for dacoity in section 310. With four or fewer participants the sub-section cannot apply, however vicious the motive.
- Acting in concert. The BNS does not define this phrase. It is neither the "common intention" of section 3(5) nor the "common object" of section 190, and the prosecution must show that the members acted together in the killing, not merely that they stood in the same place.
- Commits murder. The death must amount to murder under section 101. If one of the exceptions to section 101 applies, the offence drops to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 105, and section 103(2) is out of the picture.
- On the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground. This is a motive element. Ordinary murder law never asks why the accused killed; this sub-section does, and the State must prove the answer.
The punishment clause reads "each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." Those words do the job that sections 3(5) and 190 do elsewhere in the Sanhita. Liability attaches to every member of the group, and the prosecution need not prove whose hand delivered the fatal blow.
Why did Parliament create a separate offence for group murder?
The sub-section follows a recommendation made by the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016, decided on 17 July 2018. A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud condemned lynching and vigilantism, issued preventive, remedial and punitive directions to the Centre and the States, and recommended that Parliament enact a separate offence for lynching with adequate punishment.
The directions, which state governments and High Courts later circulated to the police and the subordinate judiciary, included:
- designating a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as nodal officer in each district;
- identifying districts, sub-divisions and villages where incidents of lynching had been reported in the recent past;
- registering an FIR without delay once an incident occurs;
- trying such cases in fast-track courts;
- framing a compensation scheme for victims of lynching and mob violence.
Before July 2024 a lynching was prosecuted under section 302 IPC read with section 34 or section 149. Both routes survive as section 103(1) read with section 3(5) or section 190. Section 103(2) adds a named offence with the identity motive and collective liability written into the definition.
How is section 103(2) different from section 103(1), section 190 and section 3(5)?
The difference lies in what the prosecution has to prove, not in the sentence, because 103(1) and 103(2) carry the same punishment. The table sets the group-liability provisions side by side.
| Provision | Old IPC | Minimum number | Link between accused | Motive to be proved | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s.103(1) BNS | s.302 | One | Not needed | No | Death or life, and fine |
| s.103(2) BNS | None, new | Five | Acting in concert | Yes, a listed or similar ground | Death or life, and fine, for each member |
| s.3(5) BNS | s.34 | Two | Common intention | No | As for the act done |
| s.190 BNS | s.149 | Five, being an unlawful assembly under s.189 | Common object | No | As for the offence committed |
| s.117(4) BNS | None, new | Five | Acting in concert | Yes, a ground relating to the victim | Up to 7 years, and fine |
Section 3(5) and section 190 are not offences on their own. They are rules of joint liability that must be attached to a substantive offence, so the charge reads "section 103(1) read with section 190". Section 103(2) is a substantive offence with joint liability already inside it. That structural point is what most examiners are looking for when they ask you to "distinguish" these provisions.
Section 117(4) is the companion clause for grievous hurt. It uses the same five-person, acting-in-concert formula and the same grounds, with punishment of up to seven years and fine. When a group attack on identity grounds leaves the victim alive with grievous injuries, 117(4) is the charge, and if the victim later dies of those injuries the case moves up to 103(2).
What do "acting in concert" and "any other similar ground" mean?
Neither phrase is defined in the BNS, so both have to be read from the words used. Until the Supreme Court construes the sub-section, an answer that sets out the competing readings will score better than one that pretends the meaning is settled.
Acting in concert
The phrase suggests coordinated action towards the killing, something more than presence in the same crowd. Compare section 190, which makes every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object, and also of any offence the members knew to be likely in prosecution of that object. Section 103(2) has no "knew to be likely" extension. Read strictly, each accused must have taken part in a joint effort to kill. A broader reading would cover any member of a crowd that set out to attack the victim. Give both views and say which the text supports better.
Any other similar ground
The listed grounds share one feature: each relates to who the victim is or what the victim believes. "Any other similar ground" is a general phrase placed after a list of specific ones, which is the classic setting for the ejusdem generis rule. On that rule, the residuary words take their colour from the list and cover only grounds of the same kind. A killing over a boundary wall, a road accident or a quarrel at a wedding falls outside the sub-section even where the attackers number twenty.
The hardest factual pattern is a crowd that kills a stranger on a rumour that he is a thief or a child-lifter. The motive in such a case is suspicion of crime, not identity. Whether the sub-section applies will turn on the evidence of why that particular person was singled out. If witnesses or recorded messages show he was targeted for his community, region or language, section 103(2) fits. If they show only the rumour, the safer charge is section 103(1) read with section 190.
One drafting detail is worth noticing. Section 117(4) speaks of grievous hurt caused "on the ground of his race, caste or community", tying the ground to the victim. Section 103(2) simply says "on the ground of race, caste or community". The difference is small, but it is exactly the kind of point a mains question can be built on.
How does the prosecution prove a section 103(2) case?
The prosecution must prove everything an ordinary murder trial requires, together with three further facts: the number of persons, the concerted action and the ground. Older case law on crowd violence shows where each of these tends to break down.
The count of five
In Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (1962), the charge and the evidence named only five members of an unlawful assembly. Two were acquitted, and the Supreme Court held that section 149 IPC could no longer apply to the remaining accused, although their conviction for murder could be sustained with the aid of section 34. The same arithmetic will matter under section 103(2). If the evidence establishes fewer than five participants, the sub-section fails, and the court must consider section 103(1) with section 3(5). The position is different where the evidence proves that other persons, though unidentified or not before the court, were also part of the group.
Who was in the crowd
In Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, the Supreme Court approved a practical rule for cases involving a large crowd: a conviction may be sustained against a particular accused only if a certain number of witnesses, say two or three, consistently describe his part in the incident. The same caution applies to a lynching trial, where bystanders are easily implicated.
Proof of the ground
The motive is usually proved through words spoken during the attack, slogans, earlier threats, and messages or videos circulated before or after the killing. Videos and messages are electronic records, and a copy or printout of them is admissible only with the certificate required by section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
What sentence follows a conviction under section 103(2)?
The court has only two options, death or imprisonment for life, and fine is added in either case. The choice between them is governed by the same principles as in any murder case.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) holds that death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, after the aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both the crime and the criminal have been weighed. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) explained how to apply that test and listed, among the relevant categories, crimes of an anti-social or socially abhorrent character, such as the murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a minority community committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances that arouse social wrath. Counsel for the State will often argue that the identity motive in 103(2) places a case in that category. The defence will answer that sentencing remains individual, so each accused's role, age, antecedents and capacity for reform must be assessed separately.
Death is never mandatory under the sub-section. In Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) the Constitution Bench struck down the mandatory death sentence in section 303 IPC as violating Articles 14 and 21. Because section 103(2) leaves the court a choice of life imprisonment, it does not run into that difficulty.
On procedure, the First Schedule to the BNSS classifies an offence under section 103(2) as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session, the same as section 103(1). The family of a victim may also seek compensation under the victim compensation scheme framed under section 396 BNSS, which can apply even where the offenders are never traced.
Applying the section: three hypothetical cases
Work through each scenario before reading the answer.
Case one. Suppose seven men in a village stop a migrant worker, abuse him for the language he speaks and the state he comes from, and beat him to death with sticks. Each of the seven took part in the beating. All four elements are present: a group of more than five, joint action in the killing, murder under section 101, and grounds of language and place of birth. Each man can be convicted under section 103(2).
Case two. Suppose the same attack is carried out by four men, and the fifth person named in the FIR is found to have been elsewhere at the time. Section 103(2) fails on the count. The four are liable for murder under section 103(1) read with section 3(5), provided common intention is proved. The motive, though not an element any more, remains relevant to sentence.
Case three. Suppose a crowd of thirty gathers after a motorcyclist knocks down a child, and some of them beat the rider to death. There is no identity ground; the anger arose from the accident. Section 103(2) does not apply. If the crowd had formed with the object of assaulting the rider, it may be an unlawful assembly, and its members can be charged under section 103(1) read with section 190, subject to proof of who joined in.
How is section 103(2) asked in exams?
Prelims questions test detail: the minimum number, the listed grounds, the punishment, the corresponding IPC section (there is none) and the companion provision for grievous hurt. Distractors usually change the number to seven, add a minimum term, or call the offence bailable.
Mains questions tend to be problem-based. A well-built answer identifies the four elements in order, applies each to the facts, considers the fallback charges under section 103(1) read with section 3(5) or section 190, and closes with the sentencing position under Bachan Singh.
Candidates lose marks for a handful of recurring errors:
- treating section 103(2) as a rule of joint liability like section 190, rather than as a substantive offence;
- forgetting that the identity ground is an element the prosecution must prove;
- writing that death is mandatory, or that the sub-section prescribes a minimum term;
- reading "any other similar ground" as covering any motive at all.
Readers who want to see how High Courts and the Supreme Court are reading the new code as cases arrive can follow the LegalFirms judgments index.
Key points to remember
- Section 103(2) BNS is new; there was no corresponding provision in the IPC.
- The elements are a group of five or more, acting in concert, committing murder, on a listed or similar identity ground.
- Every member of the group is liable to death or life imprisonment, and fine; death is not mandatory.
- Section 117(4) is the parallel offence for grievous hurt, punishable with up to seven years and fine.
- If any element fails, fall back on section 103(1) read with section 3(5) (common intention) or section 190 (common object).
- The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session.
- Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) recommended a separate law on lynching and laid down preventive, remedial and punitive directions.
Where to go next
Read section 101 on murder alongside section 103, because every 103(2) problem first requires you to show that the killing was murder and not culpable homicide. Then compare the full text of sections 189 and 190 to fix the difference between concerted action and common object, and test yourself on the BNS mock tests, where questions on new provisions such as sections 103(2), 111 and 117(4) sit alongside the familiar ones.
For a real incident, the LegalFirms guide on how to file an FIR explains the first step in plain language, and a family needing advice can put a question to a verified advocate in the criminal law section of Ask a Lawyer. This is general information, and a lawyer should be consulted on the facts of any specific case.