Where murder, the lynching provision and culpable homicide actually sit in the new numbering, the five-year minimum nobody mentions, the separate two-year limb for doctors, and the hit-and-run provision that has never been brought into force — although most of the internet says otherwise.
Murder is defined in Section 101 and punished by Section 103 — the old Sections 300 and 302. Death or imprisonment for life, and fine. Sections 100, 101 and 102 are definitional and carry no punishment of their own.
Mob lynching is Section 103(2), not 101(2), and it carries no minimum sentence — the seven-year minimum appeared only in a Bill that was withdrawn.
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is Section 105, and its first limb now carries a minimum of five years. The old Section 304 Part I had no minimum. Pages saying nothing changed are wrong.
Death by negligence is Section 106, and the punishment rose from two years to five. A registered medical practitioner causing death while performing a medical procedure stays at two years.
Section 106(2) — the hit-and-run provision — has never come into force. The notification bringing the BNS into effect on 1 July 2024 expressly excluded it, and in July 2026 the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking its enforcement. A hit-and-run is charged under Section 106(1), not 106(2). Position as at September 2026 — verify before relying on it.
| What it covers | Old law | New law | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Culpable homicide — definition | Section 299 IPC | 100 BNS | Definitional |
| Murder — definition, with five Exceptions | Section 300 IPC | 101 BNS | Definitional |
| Death of a person other than the one intended | Section 301 IPC | 102 BNS | Definitional |
| Punishment for murder | Section 302 IPC | 103(1) BNS | Death or life, and fine |
| Murder by a group of five or more on specified grounds | No equivalent | 103(2) BNS | Death or life, and fine |
| Murder by a person under sentence of life imprisonment | Section 303 IPC | 104 BNS | Death, or life meaning the remainder of natural life |
| Culpable homicide not amounting to murder | Section 304 IPC | 105 BNS | See below |
| Causing death by negligence | Section 304A IPC | 106 BNS | Up to 5 years and fine; 2 years for a doctor in a medical procedure |
A significant number of pages place this in "Section 101(2)". Section 101 has no sub-section (2). The provision is Section 103(2), and the official classification table lists it there.
It applies where a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground. Each member of the group is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and fine.
This is a small provision with an interesting history, and it is genuinely new in effect.
Under the old Code, murder by a person already serving a sentence of imprisonment for life carried a mandatory death sentence. In 1983 the Supreme Court struck that provision down precisely because it left the court no choice, and for the next four decades it was a dead letter.
The BNS re-enacts the offence but gives the court a choice — death, or imprisonment for life which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life. By removing the mandatory element it cures the defect that had made the old provision unconstitutional, so the section is workable again.
This is the most litigated question in Indian criminal law, and the structure is easier than the case law makes it look. Work through it in three steps.
| Step | The question | If yes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is it culpable homicide at all, under Section 100? | Go to step 2. If no, it may be death by negligence, or no offence |
| 2 | Does it fall within one of the clauses of Section 101? | It is prima facie murder. Go to step 3 |
| 3 | Does one of the five Exceptions apply? | It drops to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 105 |
"In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie."
The Court described the Code as practically recognising three degrees of culpable homicide — murder; the first limb of the culpable-homicide provision; and its second limb.
Those three degrees are now Section 103, Section 105 first limb, and Section 105 second limb.
The line between the two offences lies in the degree of certainty the law attaches to the act.
| Culpable homicide — Section 100 | Murder — Section 101 |
|---|---|
| An act done with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death | An injury intended to be inflicted which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death |
| An act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death | An act so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death |
"Likely" against "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature". "Likely" against "must in all probability". Those two shifts are what a homicide trial argues about, and the leading authority on the first of them is nearly seventy years old and still cited every week.
"The question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present."
The point is precise and often missed: the prosecution does not have to prove that the accused intended to kill, or even intended a serious injury. It has to prove that he intended that particular injury — and then it is for the court to say, on medical evidence, whether that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
They are unchanged from the old Code, in numbering and in content.
| # | The Exception |
|---|---|
| 1 | Grave and sudden provocation causing loss of self-control |
| 2 | Exceeding the right of private defence in good faith, without premeditation |
| 3 | A public servant exceeding his lawful power in good faith |
| 4 | A sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without premeditation and without undue advantage or cruelty |
| 5 | Consent of a person above eighteen |
Exception 4 is the workhorse of homicide defence in India, and it has four conditions — all of which must be satisfied.
The Explanation to the Exception adds something defence counsel rely on constantly: it is immaterial which party provoked the quarrel or struck the first blow.
| What supports the Exception | What defeats it |
|---|---|
| A single, unrepeated blow | Repeated blows, particularly after the victim had fallen |
| A weapon that happened to be at hand | A weapon carried to the scene |
| A quarrel that flared without warning | A time gap between the quarrel and the act |
| Both sides fighting | Several accused against one victim |
In a decision of 2026 the Supreme Court altered a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder on exactly this reasoning — a single unrepeated blow in a sudden, unpremeditated fight, showing knowledge that the act was likely to cause death but not an intention to cause it.
Exception 1 requires the provocation to be both grave and sudden, and to have caused the accused to lose his power of self-control. It carries three provisos: it does not apply where the provocation was sought or voluntarily provoked by the accused; where it was given by anything done in obedience to the law or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of his powers; or where it was given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
| Limb | When it applies | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| First | The act was done with the intention of causing death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death | Imprisonment for life, or not less than five years and up to ten, and fine |
| Second | The act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or such injury | Up to ten years, and fine |
| 103(1) — murder | Death or life, and fine · cognizable · non-bailable · Court of Session |
| 103(2) — murder by a group of five or more | Death or life, and fine · cognizable · non-bailable · Court of Session |
| 104 — murder by a person under a life sentence | Death, or life meaning natural life · cognizable · non-bailable · Court of Session |
| 105 — first limb | Life, or 5 to 10 years, and fine · cognizable · non-bailable · Court of Session |
| 105 — second limb | Up to 10 years and fine · cognizable · non-bailable · Court of Session |
| 106(1) — death by negligence | Up to 5 years and fine · cognizable · bailable · Magistrate of the first class |
| 106(1) — registered medical practitioner in a medical procedure | Up to 2 years and fine · cognizable · bailable · Magistrate of the first class |
| 106(2) — hit and run | Not in force — see below |
| Compoundable? | None of them. They appear in neither compounding table |
Section 106 covers causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide — the road accident, the building collapse, the medical procedure that goes wrong.
The punishment rose from two years to five. That is the change that matters most in day-to-day practice, and there is a second, quieter one: a fine is no longer an alternative to imprisonment.
The section carves out a lower maximum for one category. Where the act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing a medical procedure, the maximum is two years and fine — that is, doctors remain where the old Section 304A left everyone.
Two conditions, and both are needed:
This is the single most widely repeated error about the new criminal law, and it has been wrong for over two years.
Section 106(2) provides that a person who causes death by rash and negligent driving and escapes without reporting the incident to a police officer or a Magistrate shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine.
It has never been brought into force. The notification of 23 February 2024 appointed 1 July 2024 as the date on which the BNS would come into force "except the provision of sub-section (2) of section 106". The exclusion followed the transporters' protest of December 2023 and an undertaking to consult the industry.
In July 2026 a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking a direction to enforce it, holding that the decision whether and when to notify a statutory provision falls within the exclusive domain of the Central Government.
The standard is much higher than ordinary negligence, and the leading decision also laid down procedural safeguards that are frequently ignored at the police station.
Negligence must be "gross or of a very high degree", and the words "rash or negligent" are "to be read as qualified by the word 'grossly'".
The test is what "no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do".
The safeguards it laid down:
That guidance survives and continues to be applied — the Supreme Court quashed a culpable-homicide charge against a doctor on this basis in February 2025.
The criminal case punishes; it does not pay. These are the routes that actually put money in a family's hands, and several of them are recent enough that most people do not know they exist.
| Route | What it gives | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| No-fault compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act | ₹5,00,000 in the case of death; ₹2,50,000 for grievous hurt | Negligence does not have to be proved. This replaced the older structured-formula provision, which was repealed — pages still citing it are out of date |
| Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — fault-based claim | Full compensation, assessed on the established multiplier method | Usually much larger. Runs separately from the criminal case |
| Hit-and-run compensation scheme, 2022 | ₹2,00,000 in the case of death; ₹50,000 for grievous hurt | Where the vehicle causing the accident is not identified. This scheme superseded the 1989 solatium scheme, whose much smaller figures are still widely quoted |
| Cashless treatment scheme, launched February 2026 | Up to ₹1,50,000 per victim, for seven days of treatment | Any road. Dial 112. Meant for the golden hour, when families are asked for deposits they do not have |
People do not stop, and the reason they give is fear of the police and the hospital. The law has answered that, and the answer deserves to be better known.
A Good Samaritan — a person who in good faith and without expectation of reward takes an injured person to hospital — is protected. Under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made under it:
There is also a scheme rewarding a person who saves a life in the golden hour with a cash award and a certificate, available a limited number of times a year.
| Stage | What happens |
|---|---|
| FIR | All of these offences are cognizable. Where the death is unnatural, the inquest machinery under the BNSS applies — the same provisions described on our page on Section 108 |
| Post-mortem and inquest | Conducted before the body is released. Relatives are entitled to be informed where a magisterial inquiry is held |
| Trial | Court of Session for Sections 103, 104 and 105. Magistrate of the first class for Section 106 |
| Bail | Section 106 is bailable. Sections 103 to 105 are not — bail lies to the Sessions Court and then the High Court, and the Sessions Court has full jurisdiction to grant it |
| Free legal aid | Available through the Delhi State Legal Services Authority — a woman qualifies regardless of income, as do several other categories. Helpline 1516 |
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in criminal matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
The definition is Section 101 — the old Section 300 IPC. The punishment is Section 103 — the old Section 302. So "he has a 302 case" is now a Section 103 case. Sections 100, 101 and 102 are definitional and carry no punishment of their own.
Death or imprisonment for life, and a fine.
Section 103(2) — not 101(2), as several pages say. Where a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground, each member is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and fine.
No. The Bill introduced in August 2023 had "not less than seven years", but that Bill was withdrawn. The enacted provision carries no minimum. Pages quoting seven years are quoting a draft that never became law.
Murder by a person already under a sentence of imprisonment for life. Under the old Code the punishment was mandatory death, and the Supreme Court struck that down in 1983 for exactly that reason. The BNS gives the court a choice — death, or imprisonment for life which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life — so a provision that had been a dead letter for forty years is workable again.
All murder is culpable homicide; not all culpable homicide is murder. The Supreme Court put it as culpable homicide being the genus and murder its species. Section 100 defines the wider offence; Section 101 identifies the narrower one; and the five Exceptions to Section 101 bring a case back down.
By degree of certainty. Section 100 speaks of an act likely to cause death. Section 101 speaks of an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and of an act so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. Those two phrases carry most of the argument in a homicide trial.
Five, and they are unchanged: grave and sudden provocation; exceeding the right of private defence in good faith; a public servant exceeding his lawful power in good faith; a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation; and consent of a person above eighteen. Where one applies, the offence drops to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 105.
Two limbs. Where the act was done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death — imprisonment for life, or not less than five years and up to ten, and fine. Where it was done with knowledge but without that intention — up to ten years and fine. The five-year minimum is new; the old Section 304 Part I had none, and pages saying "no change from IPC 304" are wrong.
Yes. Sections 100, 101, 103 and 105 reproduce the old provisions without substantive change, so every decision on culpable homicide and murder decided before July 2024 continues to apply. One drafting point matters when you cite them: the IPC said "Firstly" to "Fourthly", the BNS says clauses (a) to (d) — so the famous "clause thirdly" is now Section 101(1)(c).
Causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide — the old Section 304A. The punishment rose from two years to five, and a fine is no longer an alternative to imprisonment.
Yes. Where the act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing a medical procedure, the maximum is two years and fine. Both conditions are needed — registration, and the act being done in the course of a medical procedure. A doctor who causes death by rash driving faces five years like anyone else.
No — and this is the most important thing on this page. Section 106(2), which provides ten years for causing death by rash and negligent driving and then escaping without reporting, was expressly left out when the BNS was brought into force on 1 July 2024. The notification appointed that date for the Act "except the provision of sub-section (2) of section 106". In July 2026 the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking its enforcement, holding that whether and when to notify a provision is for the Central Government. As things stand it has never commenced.
Section 106(1) — five years — together with the rash-driving provision of the Sanhita and the reporting obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act. Not Section 106(2). Any page telling you a hit-and-run carries ten years and a large fixed fine is describing a provision that is not in force, and a fine figure the section does not contain.
Only for negligence that is gross or of a very high degree. The Supreme Court held in 2005 that "rash or negligent" in this context is to be read as qualified by the word "grossly", and that the test is what no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do. It also laid down safeguards, which are set out on this page.
Under the Motor Vehicles Act there is a no-fault route giving ₹5,00,000 in the case of death and ₹2,50,000 for grievous hurt, without having to prove negligence. A full fault-based claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is separate and usually much larger.
Yes. The hit-and-run compensation scheme notified in 2022 provides ₹2,00,000 in the case of death and ₹50,000 for grievous hurt where the vehicle causing the accident is not identified.
A cashless treatment scheme launched in February 2026 provides up to ₹1,50,000 per victim for seven days of treatment following a road accident on any road. Dial 112.
No. A Good Samaritan who takes an injured person to hospital in good faith is protected from civil and criminal liability, cannot be compelled to disclose their identity, cannot be detained, and is to be examined only once and at their own convenience. A hospital cannot demand payment as a condition of treatment. There is also a scheme rewarding those who help in the golden hour.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line what has happened and at what stage the matter is. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.