IPC 303 vs BNS 104: Murder by Life-Convict Changes Explained (2026)

In India, Section 104 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. Section 303 made death mandatory for murder by a life-convict and was struck down in 1983; Section 104 prescribes death or imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life.

At a glance

IPC	BNS	Offence	Punishment (BNS text)	Classification (BNSS First Schedule)	Change
303	104	Murder committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life	Death, or imprisonment for life which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life (no fine)	Cognizable; non-bailable; Court of Session	Modified (mandatory death → death or life for the remainder of natural life)

The CrPC First Schedule classified Section 303 IPC as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session, with "Death" as the punishment (the "Ditto" entries trace to the Section 302 row), so the classification is unchanged. The India Code text of Section 303 IPC, as printed, carries no note that the section had been declared void.

What changed

Modified — punishment (Section 104 BNS, IPC 303): "shall be punished with death" becomes "shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life". Death is no longer the only sentence.
Minor edit — wording of the offence: "Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder" — the BNS adds a comma after "life"; the words describing who is covered are otherwise the same.
Identical — no fine: neither Section 303 IPC nor Section 104 BNS mentions fine. By contrast, Section 103(1) BNS (murder) adds "and shall also be liable to fine".
Identical — classification: cognizable, non-bailable, Court of Session.
Context — the status of Section 303 IPC: from 7 April 1983 Section 303 had been declared unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court (Mithu, below). The Court said that all cases of murder would now fall under Section 302 IPC, so, on a reading of that declaration, from that date until 30 June 2024 there was no separate IPC offence of murder by a life-convict in operation. Section 104 BNS creates a separate offence for the same person again, with a different punishment structure.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 303 IPC (declared void in 1983; repealed from 1 July 2024):

Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder shall be punished with death.

Extract, Section 104 BNS:

Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life.

Extract, Section 103(1) BNS, for comparison:

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

How it works — the ingredients

Murder — the accused must have committed murder as defined in Section 101 BNS (formerly Section 300 IPC). Section 104 is a punishment provision; it does not change what murder is.
"Being under sentence of imprisonment for life" — at the time of the murder the accused must be under a sentence of imprisonment for life. The section does not say where the murder must take place, so on a reading of the text it is not limited to murders in prison.
Sentence — the court chooses between:
- death; or
- imprisonment for life, "which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life".

The sentencing process — Section 104 now fits the ordinary sentencing framework that Mithu held Section 303 bypassed:

Section 258(2) BNSS requires the Sessions Judge, on conviction, to "hear the accused on the questions of sentence" (formerly Section 235(2) CrPC).
Section 393(3) BNSS requires that, where the conviction is for an offence "punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life", the judgment state the reasons for the sentence and, "in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence" (formerly Section 354(3) CrPC). In Mithu the Court held that because Section 303 prescribed no alternative sentence, Section 354(3) CrPC had no application and the hearing under Section 235(2) became "a meaningless ritual". On a reading of the text, both provisions apply to Section 104, because it prescribes death "or" life imprisonment.

Neighbouring provisions

Section 103 BNS (formerly Section 302 IPC) covers murder generally; Section 103(2) covers murder by a group of five or more on grounds such as race, caste or community.
Section 109(2) BNS (formerly the second paragraph of Section 307 IPC) covers attempted murder by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life where hurt is caused: death or imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life.

What this means in practice

For the prosecution

Prove the subsisting life sentence at the date of the murder — the judgment and the custody or parole record — in addition to the murder itself. Without it the charge is under Section 103, not Section 104.
If death is sought, the special reasons required by Section 393(3) BNSS must be established; Section 104 does not make death the default.

For the defence

The hearing on sentence under Section 258(2) BNSS is a live opportunity to place mitigating circumstances before the court. Mithu said that the circumstance that a person is undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment "does not minimise the importance of mitigating factors" relevant to sentence.
The alternative to death is not ordinary life imprisonment but imprisonment for "the remainder of that person's natural life". Advise the accused accordingly.
Section 104 does not mention fine, so on a reading of the text no fine can be imposed under it.

For prison administration and the executive

Section 475 BNSS (formerly Section 433A CrPC) provides that where life imprisonment is imposed for an offence for which death is one of the punishments, the person shall not be released unless he has served "at least fourteen years of imprisonment"; on a reading of the text, that covers Section 104. Section 473 BNSS (power to suspend or remit sentences) and Section 474 BNSS (power to commute, including "a sentence of death, for imprisonment for life") continue to exist. Open question: how those powers operate on a sentence that the statute itself defines as the remainder of natural life is not answered by the text of Section 104, and no judgment on it was read for this page.

Judgments that still matter

Mithu v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 690 — 7 April 1983. A five-Judge Bench (Chandrachud C.J., S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, O. Chinnappa Reddy and A. Varadarajan JJ.) heard a batch of criminal appeals, writ petitions and a special leave petition challenging Section 303 IPC. The principal judgment was delivered by Chandrachud C.J.; Chinnappa Reddy J. delivered a separate concurring judgment. The report does not show paragraph numbers.

Why Bachan Singh did not decide it: the Court held that there is "a fundamental distinction" between Sections 302 and 303 — Section 302 provides death as an alternative, while "the only sentence which section 303 prescribes is the sentence of death" — so Section 354(3) CrPC had no application and the hearing on sentence under Section 235(2) became a meaningless ritual.
Article 14: the Court found no rational justification for distinguishing, for punishment, between murderers who are under a life sentence and those who are not, and none between a person who commits murder after serving out a life sentence and one who commits murder while still under it; the classification "bears no nexus with the object of the statute".
Article 21: it accepted the argument that the procedure by which Section 303 authorised the deprivation of life was unfair and unjust, observing that "A savage sentence is anathema to the civilized jurisprudence of Article 21."
Outcome (p. 712): the Court struck down Section 303 as unconstitutional and declared it void, adding that all cases of murder would now fall under Section 302 IPC "and there shall be no mandatory sentence of death for the offence of murder". The Court said the individual appeals and writ petitions in the batch "may now be placed before a Division Bench for disposal on merits in the light of these judgments".
Concurring judgment: Chinnappa Reddy J. wrote: "Sec. 303 excludes judicial discretion. The scales of justice are removed from the hands of the Judge so soon as he pronounces the accused guilty of the offence." He agreed that the section must be struck down as unconstitutional.

The judgment also recorded that a 1972 Bill to amend the Penal Code, following a Joint Committee recommendation that the choice between death and life imprisonment for such a murder be left to the court, had lapsed. Why it bears on Section 104: on a reading of the text, Section 104 does not repeat the feature Mithu found fatal — it gives the court a choice of sentence and so engages the sentencing hearing and the special-reasons requirement. Mithu did not consider a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, and no judgment construing that part of Section 104 was read for this page.

Which law applies to your case

Section 303 IPC was declared void on 7 April 1983, and Mithu said all cases of murder would fall under Section 302 IPC. Section 358(2) BNS keeps alive any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to continue "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that provision, a murder by a life-convict committed before 1 July 2024 is charged and punished under Section 302 IPC. Section 104 BNS applies to murders committed on or after that date. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than that under the law in force when the offence was committed; on a reading of that Article, the "remainder of natural life" sentence in Section 104 cannot be imposed for a murder committed before 1 July 2024. Pending trials continue under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 303 IPC? Section 104 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 303 IPC. It applies to whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, and prescribes death or imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life. Section 303 IPC prescribed death as the only punishment.

Was Section 303 IPC struck down? Yes. In Mithu v. State of Punjab ([1983] 2 S.C.R. 690), decided on 7 April 1983, a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 303 violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, struck it down as unconstitutional and declared it void. The Court said that all cases of murder would then fall under Section 302 IPC and there would be no mandatory sentence of death for murder.

Is the death penalty mandatory under Section 104 BNS? No. Section 104 BNS gives the court a choice between death and imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of the convict's natural life. Because death is an alternative, Section 393(3) BNSS requires the judgment to state the reasons for the sentence and, if death is imposed, the special reasons for it, and Section 258(2) BNSS requires the Sessions Judge to hear the accused on the question of sentence.

How is Section 104 BNS different from Section 103 BNS? Section 103(1) BNS punishes murder with death or imprisonment for life, and fine. Section 104 applies only where the murderer is already under sentence of imprisonment for life; its alternative to death is imprisonment for life which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life, and it does not mention fine.

Is murder by a life-convict bailable? No. The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists Section 104 BNS as cognizable and non-bailable, triable by the Court of Session. The CrPC First Schedule classified Section 303 IPC the same way.

Can a life-convict sentenced under Section 104 BNS get remission after fourteen years? Section 475 BNSS provides that where life imprisonment is imposed for an offence for which death is one of the punishments, the person shall not be released unless he has served at least fourteen years. Section 104 separately says the life imprisonment it prescribes shall mean the remainder of the person's natural life. How the remission and commutation powers in Sections 473 and 474 BNSS apply to such a sentence is an open question: the text does not answer it, and no judgment on it was read for this page.

Which law applies to a murder by a life-convict committed before 1 July 2024? Section 303 IPC had been declared void in 1983, and Mithu said all cases of murder would fall under Section 302 IPC. Section 358(2) BNS saves penalties incurred under the IPC, so on a reading of that text a murder committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 302 IPC. Section 104 BNS applies to murders committed on or after 1 July 2024.

Sources

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 101, 103, 104, 109 and 358.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 302, 303 and 307.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 258, 393, 473 to 475 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Sections 103, 104 and 109(2) BNS.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 354(3) and the First Schedule entry for Section 303 IPC, with Ditto entries traced.
Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
Judgment read in full text: Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983_2_690_713_EN.md; citation confirmed from report PDF 1983_2_690_713_EN.pdf).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Section 303 IPC vs Section 104 BNS — Punishment for Murder by Life-Convict