Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, creates a specific offence of murder by a group, with no counterpart in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The IPC had no provision addressing murder by a group on identity grounds; such cases could be charged only under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) or Section 149 (unlawful assembly). BNS 103(2) provides that when 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 such group shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. The sub-section does not itself use the expression "mob lynching"; this page uses that label for it.
What changed
| Old law | New law | |
|---|---|---|
| Act | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
| Section | No specific provision (used 302 read with 34/149) | 103(2) |
| Title | (None — no dedicated mob lynching offence) | Punishment for murder (s.103 heading; sub-section (2) covers murder by a group of five or more acting in concert on specified grounds) |
| Change type | New provision — no IPC counterpart for murder by a group on the specified grounds |
Relevant statutory text (extract)
IPC — No equivalent provision
The IPC had no section specifically addressing mob lynching. Such cases were prosecuted using a combination of:
Section 302 — Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Read with Section 34 — When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Or Section 149 — If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 103(2) BNS — Murder by group (mob lynching)
(2) When 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 such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Key differences
First standalone mob lynching offence: The IPC had no specific offence of murder by a group on these grounds. The prosecution had to rely on the general murder provision (Section 302 IPC) read with vicarious liability provisions (Section 34 or Section 149 IPC). Section 103(2) BNS eliminates this gap by creating a dedicated offence.
Group threshold of five persons: The provision requires a group of five or more persons acting in concert. This threshold mirrors the requirement for an unlawful assembly under IPC Section 141 and for dacoity under IPC Section 391. Groups of fewer than five persons committing murder would fall to be prosecuted under Section 103(1) BNS read with Section 3(5) BNS (common intention) or, where the group is an unlawful assembly, Section 190 BNS.
Identity-based motive required: Section 103(2) applies only when the murder is committed on grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief, or any other similar ground. This is not a general group murder provision — it specifically targets identity-based mob violence. Murders by groups of five or more persons that are not motivated by identity-based grounds do not fall under this sub-section.
Collective liability without Section 34/149: Under the IPC, prosecutors had to establish common intention (Section 34) or common object of an unlawful assembly (Section 149) to hold all members of a mob liable. Section 103(2) BNS itself provides that "each member of such group shall be punished". On a reading of those words, where the elements of the sub-section are proved, the prosecution need not separately invoke common intention (Section 3(5) BNS) or unlawful-assembly liability (Section 190 BNS).
"Acting in concert" as the liability standard: The provision uses the phrase "acting in concert," which is distinct from both "common intention" and "common object." This phrase requires coordinated participation in the act of murder but may set a different evidentiary threshold than the established doctrines under Sections 34 and 149 IPC.
"Any other similar ground" — open-ended: The list of grounds concludes with "any other similar ground". The text does not define the expression; which unenumerated grounds qualify as "similar" is a question of interpretation for the courts.
What this means for practitioners
For prosecution: Section 103(2) BNS simplifies the prosecution of mob lynching cases. Instead of relying on the cumbersome combination of Section 302 read with Section 34 or 149, prosecutors can directly charge under Section 103(2). The prosecution must establish three elements: (a) a group of five or more persons, (b) acting in concert to commit murder, and (c) the murder was committed on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground.
For defence counsel: The identity-based motive requirement is a key defence point. Where a mob killing is motivated by personal enmity, property disputes, or other non-identity-based factors, Section 103(2) does not apply, and the prosecution must proceed under Section 103(1) with separate common intention or unlawful assembly charges. Defence counsel should also scrutinise whether each accused was genuinely "acting in concert" — mere presence at the scene may be insufficient.
For charge sheet drafting: When invoking Section 103(2), the charge sheet should specifically identify: the ground on which the murder was committed, the composition of the group (five or more persons), and evidence of acting in concert. If the ground is not established, on a reading of the text the case would fall to be considered under Section 103(1), which carries the same punishment, with group liability resting on Section 3(5) or Section 190 BNS.
For sentencing: The punishment under Section 103(2) — death or life imprisonment plus fine — is identical to Section 103(1). However, the creation of a specific provision may be argued to signal that courts should treat identity-based mob murders as among the gravest categories, potentially meeting the "rarest of rare" threshold for the death penalty.
Does old case law still apply?
Section 103(2) BNS has no IPC predecessor, so no earlier judgment construes it. The Supreme Court judgments below predate it and are summarised for what they decided.
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India ([2018] 9 S.C.R. 291; 2018 INSC 617) — A three-judge bench (Dipak Misra CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud JJ), deciding a writ petition on cow vigilantism and incidents of lynching on 17 July 2018, issued guidelines in the form of preventive, remedial and punitive measures (para 40). They include designation by State Governments of a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal Officer in each district, and trial of lynching and mob-violence cases by designated or fast-track courts in each district, preferably concluded within six months of cognizance. The Court observed that "The horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land" (para 42), and recommended that Parliament create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for it (para 43). The judgment does not interpret Section 103(2), which was enacted later.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab ([1983] 1 S.C.R. 145; 1980 INSC 120) — A five-judge Constitution Bench, by majority (judgment of 9 May 1980 delivered by Sarkaria J; Bhagwati J dissented, giving his reasons on 16 August 1982), rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty in Section 302 IPC and the sentencing procedure in Section 354(3) CrPC. The majority held that, for persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception, and that a life ought not to be taken through the law's instrumentality "save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed". Bachan Singh concerned Section 302 IPC; because Section 103(2) prescribes the same alternatives of death or imprisonment for life, on a reading of the text the same sentencing question arises under it. This guide does not survey whether any court has yet applied Bachan Singh to Section 103(2).
Judicial interpretation under BNS 103(2) (post-July 2024)
This guide does not survey post-July 2024 case law under Section 103(2) BNS.
Group killings charged under the IPC were prosecuted under Section 302 read with Section 149. In Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi v. State of Karnataka (Supreme Court, 2 February 2024; Criminal Appeal No. 1954 of 2012), a two-judge bench (Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal JJ) dismissed appeals against convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, holding that an overt act by some members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing the deceased and causing grievous hurt to his family was enough to make all of them liable for murder (para 20). The motive in that case was a family property dispute, so, on a reading of the words "on the ground of" in Section 103(2), a killing of that kind would fall outside the sub-section; the unlawful-assembly route (now Section 190 BNS) is the one that case illustrates.
On the text, questions Section 103(2) leaves open include: (a) what must be proved to show that the group was "acting in concert", and (b) which unenumerated grounds qualify as "any other similar ground".
Frequently asked questions
What is Section 103(2) BNS? Section 103(2) BNS provides that when 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 shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. The IPC had no corresponding provision. The sub-section itself does not use the expression "mob lynching".
Was there an IPC equivalent for mob lynching? No. The IPC had no standalone mob lynching offence. Such cases could be charged only under general provisions — Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) or Section 149 (unlawful assembly). This required the prosecution to establish the general murder offence plus a separate vicarious liability provision.
Does Section 103(2) apply to all mob killings? No. Section 103(2) applies only 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. On a reading of the words "on the ground of", a group killing arising from a personal dispute, property conflict or other reason outside those grounds falls outside the sub-section.
What is the punishment for mob lynching under BNS? Each member of a group of five or more persons acting in concert to commit identity-based murder faces death or imprisonment for life, plus fine, under Section 103(2) BNS.