Author: Lexfolio Team

Section 302 IPC is now Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), in force from 1 July 2024. Section 103(1) keeps the old punishment for murder: death or imprisonment for life, and fine. Section 103(2) is new and deals with murder by a group of five or more people on grounds such as caste, race or religion-based belief, commonly called mob lynching.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 103 BNS says

Section 103 is a punishment section. It does not itself define murder. The definition sits in Section 101 BNS (old Section 300 IPC), which in turn builds on culpable homicide in Section 100 BNS (old Section 299). So when a charge sheet says “Section 103 BNS”, the court first checks whether the act is culpable homicide under Section 100, then whether it rises to murder under Section 101, and only then applies the punishment in Section 103.

Section 103(1): ordinary murder

Whoever commits murder is liable to death or imprisonment for life, and must also pay a fine. This is the same as Section 302 IPC. Life imprisonment is the minimum. The court cannot give a fixed term like ten years for murder.

Section 103(2): group murder on identity grounds

This sub-section applies 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 ground. Each member of the group is liable to death, or life imprisonment, or imprisonment for not less than seven years, and fine.

Two features matter. First, liability is placed on each member of the group, so the prosecution does not have to prove which member struck the fatal blow. Second, the lowest option is a minimum of seven years, which gives the court a wider range than Section 103(1).

What changed from Section 302 IPC

• Number change: Section 302 became Section 103(1). The punishment is unchanged.
• New offence: Section 103(2) has no direct counterpart in the IPC. Under the old law, mob killings were prosecuted under Section 302 read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) or Section 34 (common intention).
• Murder by a life convict: Old Section 303 IPC (mandatory death) was struck down long ago. Section 104 BNS now provides death or life imprisonment that means the remainder of the convict’s natural life.

Offences committed before 1 July 2024 are still charged and tried under Section 302 IPC. The BNS applies only to offences committed on or after that date.

Important case law

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684: A Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty for murder but held that life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception, to be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470: Laid down categories (manner of the crime, motive, anti-social nature, magnitude, personality of the victim) to help courts apply the rarest of rare test, and asked courts to draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277: Struck down mandatory death under Section 303 IPC as unconstitutional. This is why Section 104 BNS gives the court a choice.
• Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501: The Supreme Court issued preventive, remedial and punitive directions against mob lynching and recommended that Parliament create a separate offence. Section 103(2) is widely seen as the legislative response.

Common confusions

Is Section 101 or Section 103 the murder section?

Both, for different purposes. Section 101 defines murder. Section 103 punishes it. Charges are normally framed under Section 103 BNS.

Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

If the case falls in one of the five exceptions to Section 101 (for example grave and sudden provocation, or a sudden fight without premeditation), it is not murder. It is then punishable under Section 105 BNS (old Section 304), which carries a lighter punishment.

Does 103(2) apply to every group attack?

No. It needs at least five persons, acting in concert, and a killing on one of the listed grounds or a similar ground. A group murder for money or personal enmity is usually charged under Section 103(1) with Section 3(5) (common intention) or Section 190 (common object).

For the general public: what to do

• Reporting: Murder is cognizable. Inform the police immediately on 112 or at the nearest police station. Police must register an FIR. Under the BNSS, information can also be given electronically, and a Zero FIR can be lodged at any police station regardless of where the crime happened.
• If police refuse: Send the complaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police, or apply to the Judicial Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS for a direction to investigate.
• Bail for the accused: Since the offence is non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session, bail is discretionary. Regular bail is usually sought before the Sessions Court and then the High Court. Anticipatory bail may be sought under Section 482 BNSS.
• Documents to keep: Copy of the FIR, post-mortem report, inquest report, medical records, photographs and names of witnesses.

Exam angle

• Remember the chain: Section 100 (culpable homicide), Section 101 (murder), Section 103 (punishment), Section 105 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
• Section 103(2) is the favourite “new offence” question: five or more persons, acting in concert, listed grounds, minimum seven years.
• Minimum punishment for murder under Section 103(1) is life imprisonment, and fine is mandatory.
• Bachan Singh (rarest of rare) and Machhi Singh (balance sheet) remain the leading sentencing cases under the BNS.
• Section 104 BNS is the new home of murder by a life convict, with “remainder of natural life” wording.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 302 IPC?

Section 302 IPC is now Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The punishment remains death or life imprisonment, with fine.

Is Section 103 BNS bailable?

No. It is cognizable and non-bailable, and it is tried by a Court of Session. Bail depends on the court’s discretion.

Which section of BNS deals with mob lynching?

Section 103(2) BNS deals with murder by five or more persons acting in concert on grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief.

Can a murder case be settled by compromise?

No. Murder is not compoundable, so a compromise between families does not end the case.

Does Section 302 IPC still apply anywhere?

Yes. For murders committed before 1 July 2024, cases continue under Section 302 IPC.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 100, 101, 103, 104 and 105 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: First Schedule
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
• Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 279 IPC is now Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It punishes driving or riding on a public way so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury, with up to six months, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. The offence and punishment are the same as under the IPC.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 281 BNS says

Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, commits this offence.

Ingredients

• Driving or riding: covers any vehicle, motorised or not, and riding an animal or a cycle.
• Public way: a road, street or path the public uses. Driving inside a private compound is outside this section, though other sections may apply.
• Rash or negligent manner: rashness is going ahead despite awareness of risk; negligence is failing to take the care a reasonable driver would take.
• Danger to human life or likelihood of hurt: actual injury is not required. The offence is complete once the manner of driving creates that danger.

Section 281 is a danger offence. It punishes the conduct itself, which is why it is almost always added to an accident FIR alongside a result offence.

How Section 281 links with other provisions

When someone dies: Section 106 BNS

If rash or negligent driving causes death not amounting to culpable homicide, Section 106(1) BNS (old Section 304A IPC) applies, with up to five years and fine. It is cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

Section 106(2) BNS is the hit-and-run clause: causing death by rash and negligent driving and escaping without reporting to a police officer or Magistrate soon after, with up to ten years and fine. This sub-section was expressly excluded from the 1 July 2024 commencement notification (S.O. 850(E), 23 February 2024), after the truckers’ protests of January 2024. It has not been notified since. In December 2024 the Gauhati High Court asked the Assam DGP to direct police stations not to register cases under it, and on 15 July 2026 the Delhi High Court declined to direct its enforcement, holding that the timing of notification is for the Central Government.

When someone is hurt: Section 125 BNS

The old Sections 336, 337 and 338 IPC are merged into Section 125 BNS, and the fines have been raised sharply:

So the familiar FIR combination “279, 337, 338 IPC” now reads “281, 125(a), 125(b) BNS”, and “279, 304A IPC” reads “281, 106(1) BNS”.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Section 184 of the MV Act punishes dangerous driving: driving at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public. After the 2019 amendment, a first offence carries imprisonment from six months to one year, or fine from Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000, or both; a repeat within three years carries up to two years, or fine of Rs 10,000, or both. The Explanation treats jumping a red light, ignoring a stop sign, using a handheld phone while driving, unlawful overtaking and driving against traffic as dangerous driving.

Both laws can apply to the same incident. The MV Act targets traffic conduct (often settled by challan), while Section 281 targets danger to human life. Compensation for victims is claimed separately before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166 MV Act, whatever happens in the criminal case.

What changed from the IPC

• Section 281 BNS is a straight renumbering of Section 279 IPC. Text, punishment and fine are the same.
• The real changes are in the companion sections: Section 125 (higher fines, three years for grievous hurt) and Section 106 (death by negligence raised from two to five years, plus the unnotified hit-and-run clause).

Important case law

State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493

The Supreme Court upheld an acquittal where the only evidence was that a truck was driven at high speed. Speed alone does not prove rashness or negligence; the prosecution must show how the driving was rash or negligent in the circumstances.

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

In a drunken driving case that killed pavement dwellers, the Court held that where the rash act is preceded by knowledge that it is likely to cause death, culpable homicide not amounting to murder (old 304 Part II) can be made out instead of 304A. Charges of the knowledge offence and of causing grievous hurt can stand together.

Mohammed Aynuddin v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72

Negligence cannot be presumed merely because a passenger fell while boarding a bus. The principle of res ipsa loquitur is applied cautiously in criminal cases.

Common confusions

Section 281 vs Section 106

Section 281 punishes the dangerous manner of driving; Section 106 punishes the death caused by it. Both are usually charged together.

Rash vs negligent

Rash: “I know it is risky, but nothing will happen.” Negligent: “I did not think about the risk at all, though a careful driver would have.” Either is enough for Section 281.

Section 281 vs Section 184 MV Act

Section 184 needs danger to the public; Section 281 needs danger to human life or likelihood of hurt. Overlap is common, but the BNS offence is the one recorded in an accident FIR.

For the general public: what to do after an accident

• Help the injured and call 112 or 108. Under Section 134A MV Act, a good samaritan cannot be held liable for helping.
• Report to the nearest police station; the offence is cognizable, so an FIR must be registered. Keep the FIR copy.
• Note the vehicle number and take photographs of the scene, vehicles and road. Ask for CCTV footage early, before it is overwritten.
• Get a medico-legal certificate for injuries; it decides whether Section 125(a) or 125(b) is added.
• For compensation, file a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Inform the insurer of both vehicles promptly.
• If you are the accused driver, Section 281 is bailable; the police can release you on bail at the station. Stay at the spot or report the accident; leaving looks like flight even though 106(2) is not in force.

Exam angle

• 279 IPC = 281 BNS; punishment unchanged: 6 months or Rs 1,000 or both.
• 336, 337, 338 IPC merged into Section 125 BNS with tenfold fines.
• Section 106(2) BNS (hit and run) was the only BNS provision excluded from the 1 July 2024 commencement.
• State of Karnataka v. Satish: high speed alone is not rashness.
• MV Act Section 184 is dangerous driving; Section 166 is the compensation claim.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 279 IPC?

Section 279 IPC is now Section 281 BNS. The wording and punishment are the same.

Is Section 281 BNS bailable?

Yes. It is cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate.

What is the new section for 279, 337 and 338 IPC?

They become Section 281, Section 125(a) and Section 125(b) BNS respectively.

Is the hit-and-run law Section 106(2) in force?

No. Section 106(2) was excluded from the 1 July 2024 commencement and, as of October 2026, has not been notified.

Can Section 281 BNS be compounded?

No. It is not listed in Section 359 BNSS. A settled case can be closed only through the High Court’s quashing power.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 106, 125 and 281; Notification S.O. 850(E) dated 23 February 2024
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, First Schedule
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 184 (as amended in 2019)
• State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493; Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 156(3) of the CrPC, under which a Magistrate could order the police to investigate (and register an FIR), is now Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), from 1 July 2024. The power remains, but it now comes with conditions written into the statute: the application must be supported by an affidavit, it must follow an application to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), and the Magistrate must consider the police officer’s submission before ordering investigation.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 175(3) BNSS provides

Section 175(1) gives the officer in charge of a police station power to investigate a cognizable case without a Magistrate’s order. Section 175(3) is the safety valve when the police do not act. A Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may order an investigation of the kind described in sub-section (1).

The power can now be used only on an application “supported by an affidavit” made under Section 173(4). Before ordering investigation, the Magistrate may make whatever inquiry he considers necessary and must consider the submission of the police officer on the matter.

The route through Section 173(4)

Section 173(4) says that a person aggrieved by the station officer’s refusal to record information can send the substance of it, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police. If the SP is satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, he investigates himself or directs a subordinate to do so. If this does not work, the person may then apply to the Magistrate. In short, the ladder is: police station, SP, Magistrate.

What changed from Section 156(3) CrPC

• Affidavit now statutory: Under the CrPC, the affidavit requirement came from case law (Priyanka Srivastava, 2015). The BNSS writes it into the section.
• SP step is a precondition: Section 175(3) expressly links the application to Section 173(4). In XXX v. State of Kerala (27 January 2026), the Supreme Court called the approach to the SP a mandatory precondition to the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
• Inquiry by the Magistrate: The Magistrate may make such inquiry as he thinks necessary before ordering investigation.
• Police officer’s submission: The Magistrate must consider what the police officer says on the refusal before passing an order. This is new.
• Complaints against public servants: Section 175(4) is new. Where the complaint concerns acts in the course of official duty, the Magistrate needs a report on the facts from the public servant’s superior officer and must consider the public servant’s own account.

Important case law

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015)

The Supreme Court noticed that Section 156(3) applications were being filed casually, often to settle scores. It held that such applications must be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant, so that the applicant takes responsibility and can be prosecuted if the affidavit is false. It also required prior use of the remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). The BNSS has now written these requirements into the statute.

Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025)

Reported as 2025 INSC 139, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan set aside a mechanical order directing registration of an FIR. It explained the three changes in Section 175(3): the SP application with affidavit, the Magistrate’s inquiry, and consideration of the police officer’s submission. It said these add accountability and help the Magistrate give reasoned orders.

XXX v. State of Kerala (2026)

Decided on 27 January 2026 by Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, the Court held that Section 175(4) is an extension of Section 175(3), so a complaint against a public servant must also satisfy the affidavit and SP-first conditions. An oral complaint does not qualify.

Common confusions

• Investigation order vs complaint case: Under Section 175(3), the Magistrate sends the matter to police for investigation. Alternatively, the Magistrate can treat the matter as a complaint and proceed under Sections 223 to 226 BNSS (old Sections 200 to 203 CrPC) by examining the complainant and witnesses.
• Pre-cognizance stage: An order under Section 175(3) is made before cognizance. It is not a summoning order against the accused.

Practical guide for the public

Step 1: Give your written information at the police station. Keep a copy with the receiving stamp, or proof of any online submission.

Step 2: If the police refuse to register, send a written application with the substance of your information to the Superintendent of Police (or Deputy Commissioner in commissionerate cities) by post, as Section 173(4) requires. Keep the postal receipt and tracking proof.

Step 3: If no action follows within a reasonable time, file an application under Section 175(3) BNSS before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Attach copies of the station application, the SP application and postal proof, along with your affidavit verifying the facts. Be truthful: a false affidavit exposes you to prosecution.

Step 4: The Magistrate will usually call for a report or the police officer’s submission before deciding. If the complaint is against a public servant for an act in official duty, expect the Magistrate to seek a report from that officer’s superior.

Exam angle

• Section 156(3) CrPC = Section 175(3) BNSS; Section 154(3) CrPC = Section 173(4) BNSS.
• Three new conditions in 175(3): affidavit-backed application under 173(4), Magistrate’s inquiry, police officer’s submission.
• Section 175(4) is new: superior officer’s report for complaints against public servants.
• Priyanka Srivastava (2015) first required the affidavit; the BNSS codified it.
• Magistrate’s power flows from Section 210 BNSS (old Section 190 CrPC).

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 156(3) CrPC?

It is Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, which applies from 1 July 2024.

Is an affidavit compulsory for an application under Section 175(3) BNSS?

Yes. The section itself requires the application to be supported by an affidavit.

Can I go directly to the Magistrate if police refuse to file my FIR?

No. You must first send your application to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4); the Supreme Court has called this a mandatory precondition.

Will the police be heard before the Magistrate orders an FIR?

The Magistrate must consider the submission of the police officer before ordering investigation under Section 175(3).

How is a complaint against a police officer or other public servant handled?

Under Section 175(4), for acts in official duty, the Magistrate needs a report from the superior officer and must consider the public servant’s version, in addition to the Section 175(3) conditions.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Sections 173, 175, 210
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 154 and 156
• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., Supreme Court, 2015
• Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139
• XXX v. State of Kerala, Supreme Court, 27 January 2026

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 147 IPC (rioting) is now Section 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 148 IPC (rioting armed with a deadly weapon) is now Section 191(3). Unlawful assembly, formerly Section 141 IPC, is defined in Section 189(1) BNS, and the famous Section 149 IPC is now Section 190 BNS.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

Unlawful assembly: Section 189 BNS

An assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if the common object of its members is any of the following:

• to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or State Government, Parliament, a State Legislature, or a public servant exercising lawful power;
• to resist the execution of any law or legal process;
• to commit mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence;
• by criminal force or show of it, to take possession of property, deprive a person of an incorporeal right such as a right of way or use of water, or enforce a supposed right;
• by criminal force or show of it, to compel a person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit what he is legally entitled to do.

An assembly that was lawful when it gathered can become unlawful later, once its common object changes.

Offences within Section 189

All the Section 189 offences with a fixed punishment are cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate under the BNSS First Schedule.

Rioting: Section 191 BNS

Section 191(1) says that whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member of it, in prosecution of the common object, every member of that assembly is guilty of rioting. Its ingredients are:

• an unlawful assembly of five or more persons;
• use of force or violence by the assembly or any one member;
• the force was used in prosecution of the common object; and
• the accused was a member at that time.

Even one member’s violence makes every member guilty of rioting, which is why the offence is so frequently charged in group clashes.

Section 190 BNS: the old Section 149 IPC

Section 190 makes every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed by any member in prosecution of the common object, or an offence the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. It creates constructive (vicarious) liability. Its punishment and classification follow the offence actually committed, so “302 read with 149 IPC” is now charged as Section 103 read with Section 190 BNS.

What changed from the IPC

• Armed rioting is punished more severely: Section 148 IPC carried up to three years. Section 191(3) BNS carries up to five years, or fine, or both.
• Consolidation: the scattered IPC Sections 141 to 145, 150, 151, 157 and 158 now sit within Section 189, and Sections 146 to 148 within Section 191.
• Wider weapon wording continues: both 189(4) and 191(3) cover not only deadly weapons but “anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death”.
• Other punishments: membership, joining after dispersal order, armed membership and simple rioting keep the same maximums as before.

Important case law

Masalti v. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133

A Constitution Bench held that it is not necessary for every member of an unlawful assembly to play an active role. The prosecution must prove membership and the shared common object; once that is shown, each member is liable for the offence committed in prosecution of that object. Courts usually look for consistent evidence of several witnesses in such large group cases.

Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided 3 November 2023

A three-judge bench reaffirmed that no overt act needs to be proved against each member; membership with the common object is enough. On the facts, it found the assembly’s object to kill was not proved and altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Part II).

Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394

Where the prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused in a group clash, the court may infer that the true origin of the incident has been hidden. This often decides rioting cases arising from mutual fights.

Common confusions

Section 190 vs Section 3(5) BNS (common intention)

Section 3(5) BNS (old Section 34 IPC) is only a rule of evidence and needs a prior meeting of minds and participation; it can apply to two persons. Section 190 creates a distinct liability, needs five or more, and requires only membership with a common object, not a prior plan.

Rioting vs affray

Affray, now Section 194 BNS (old 159 and 160 IPC), needs only two or more persons fighting in a public place and disturbing the peace. Rioting needs an unlawful assembly of five or more.

Number of accused below five

If some accused are acquitted and fewer than five remain, the conviction for rioting can still stand where the evidence shows that others, identified or unidentified, made up the five.

For the general public: what to do

• If you are attacked by a group, report at once; rioting is cognizable and the police must register an FIR.
• Get a medical examination done and keep the medico-legal report. Video clips from phones or CCTV help identify members, but ask the police to seize them with proper certification.
• If you are named in a group FIR, remember that Section 191(2) and 191(3) are bailable, so bail is a right on furnishing bonds. However, if heavier sections such as murder or grievous hurt are added with Section 190, bail becomes discretionary.
• Prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (old Section 144 CrPC) may operate during unrest; joining an assembly after a dispersal command is itself an offence under Section 189(3) or (5).

Exam angle

• 141 = 189(1); 143 = 189(2); 144 = 189(4); 145 = 189(3); 147 = 191(2); 148 = 191(3); 149 = 190.
• Armed rioting maximum raised from 3 to 5 years.
• Minimum number for unlawful assembly and rioting: five. Affray: two.
• Do not confuse Section 144 IPC (armed member) with the old Section 144 CrPC prohibitory order, now Section 163 BNSS.
• Masalti: active role by every member is not needed for constructive liability.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 147 IPC?

Section 147 IPC is now Section 191(2) BNS, with up to two years, or fine, or both.

What is the new section for 148 IPC?

Section 148 IPC is now Section 191(3) BNS. The maximum punishment rose from three years to five years, or fine, or both.

Is Section 191 BNS bailable?

Yes. Both Section 191(2) and Section 191(3) are cognizable and bailable under the BNSS First Schedule.

What is Section 149 IPC in BNS?

Section 149 IPC is now Section 190 BNS, which makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for offences committed in prosecution of the common object.

Which BNS section defines unlawful assembly?

Section 189(1) BNS, which replaces Section 141 IPC and requires five or more persons with one of the listed common objects.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 189 to 191 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, First Schedule
• Masalti v. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133, Constitution Bench
• Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court, 3 November 2023

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 125 of the CrPC (maintenance of wives, children and parents) is now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), from 1 July 2024. A person with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, child or parent can be ordered by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to pay a monthly allowance. The scheme, including interim maintenance and the 60-day disposal target, is carried forward almost word for word.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 144 BNSS provides

The provision has a simple test: the person against whom maintenance is claimed must have “sufficient means”, and must have neglected or refused to maintain the claimant. The claimant, on the other hand, must be unable to maintain himself or herself.

Four classes of persons can claim. First, a wife who cannot maintain herself. The Explanation extends “wife” to a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, so long as she has not remarried. Second, a legitimate or illegitimate child, married or not, who cannot maintain itself (see the note below on the word “minor”). Third, an adult child (other than a married daughter) who, because of physical or mental abnormality or injury, cannot maintain itself. Fourth, a father or mother who cannot maintain himself or herself.

Under the first proviso, a father can be directed to maintain a married daughter until she attains majority if her husband lacks sufficient means.

Interim maintenance and the 60-day rule

The second proviso allows the Magistrate, while the main case is pending, to order monthly interim maintenance and reasonable expenses of the proceeding. The third proviso says the interim application should, “as far as possible”, be disposed of within sixty days from service of notice on the respondent. Both provisos are carried over unchanged from the CrPC.

When the wife is not entitled

Sub-section (4) disentitles a wife who is living in adultery, who refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband, or where the couple live separately by mutual consent. On proof of any of these, sub-section (5) requires the Magistrate to cancel the order.

What changed from Section 125 CrPC

For practical purposes, the law of maintenance is the same. The order runs from the date of the order or, if so directed, the date of application. Enforcement is by a warrant to levy the amount like a fine, with imprisonment up to one month for each unpaid month; arrears must be claimed within one year.

The procedure sections are renumbered: Section 126 CrPC (where to file and procedure) is now Section 145; Section 127 (alteration of allowance) is now Section 146; Section 128 (enforcement) is now Section 147.

One textual point is debated. Some legal commentators read the new clause (b) as dropping the word “minor” before “child”, which could open the door to claims by adult children. No court has settled this so far, and different published versions of the text differ, so do not rely on it without checking the official Gazette text.

Important case law

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)

A Constitution Bench held that the provision operates independently of personal law and covers a divorced Muslim wife unable to maintain herself.

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008)

The Supreme Court held that “unable to maintain herself” does not mean the wife must be destitute. The test is whether she can maintain herself at the standard of living she had in the matrimonial home, and her efforts to survive after desertion do not count against her.

Rajnesh v. Neha (2020)

The Court laid down guidelines for all maintenance cases: both parties must file an affidavit disclosing assets and liabilities, maintenance is to be awarded from the date of the application, and overlapping claims under different laws must be adjusted.

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2024)

Decided on 10 July 2024, this case held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not displace the general remedy. A divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under the general law, the 1986 Act, or both.

Common confusions

• Section 144 BNSS vs old Section 144 CrPC: Old Section 144 CrPC was prohibitory orders (public nuisance). That is now Section 163 BNSS. New Section 144 BNSS is maintenance.
• Other laws: Claims can also be made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005; courts adjust amounts to avoid double recovery.

Practical guide for the public

Under Section 145 BNSS, the petition can be filed in any district where the respondent is, where he or the wife resides, or where he last resided with the wife (or with the mother of an illegitimate child). In cities with a Family Court, the case goes there.

Documents to keep ready: proof of marriage or relationship (certificate, photographs, birth certificates of children), proof of the respondent’s income (salary slips, property papers, business details), proof of your own expenses (school fees, rent, medical bills), and the affidavit of assets and liabilities required by Rajnesh v. Neha. File the interim application with the main petition.

Exam angle

• Section 125 CrPC = Section 144 BNSS; Sections 126, 127, 128 CrPC = Sections 145, 146, 147 BNSS.
• Old Section 144 CrPC (prohibitory orders) is now Section 163 BNSS. Do not mix them up.
• Interim maintenance: decide within 60 days “as far as possible” from service of notice.
• Arrears: application within one year; imprisonment up to one month per default.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for maintenance under BNSS?

Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 replaces Section 125 CrPC for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

How quickly can interim maintenance be granted?

The law says the interim application should, as far as possible, be decided within 60 days from the date notice is served on the respondent.

Can a divorced wife claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS?

Yes. A divorced woman who has not remarried and cannot maintain herself is treated as a “wife” for this purpose.

Can parents claim maintenance from their children?

Yes. A father or mother unable to maintain themselves can claim against a son or daughter who has sufficient means.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Sections 144 to 147
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 125 to 128
• Rajnesh v. Neha, Supreme Court, 2020
• Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, Supreme Court, 10 July 2024
• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, Supreme Court, 1985

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) creates the new offence of organised crime, which had no counterpart in the IPC. It punishes continuing unlawful activity by a syndicate with punishments from five years up to life or death, plus heavy minimum fines. Section 112 BNS separately punishes petty organised crime, such as gang pickpocketing or ticket touting, with one to seven years.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 111(1) says

Organised crime is any continuing unlawful activity, carried out by a person or a group acting singly or jointly, as a member of or on behalf of an organised crime syndicate, using violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion or other unlawful means, to obtain direct or indirect material benefit, including financial benefit.

The listed activities

Kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking in persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, and human trafficking for prostitution or ransom.

Three key definitions in the Explanation

• Organised crime syndicate: “a group of two or more persons” who, acting singly or jointly as a syndicate or gang, indulge in continuing unlawful activity.
• Continuing unlawful activity: an activity prohibited by law that is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken as a member or on behalf of a syndicate, in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years, and that court has taken cognizance.
• Economic offence: includes criminal breach of trust, forgery, counterfeiting of currency notes, bank notes and government stamps, hawala transactions, mass-marketing fraud, schemes to defraud several persons, and acts aimed at defrauding a bank or financial institution for monetary benefit.

The charge-sheet test is the filter that separates a syndicate from a one-time group offence. It is the point most often argued in bail and quashing petitions.

Offences and punishments in Section 111

All sub-sections of Section 111 are cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session under the BNSS First Schedule.

Petty organised crime: Section 112

A person commits petty organised crime when, as a member of a group or gang, he commits, singly or jointly, theft, snatching, cheating, unauthorised selling of tickets, unauthorised betting or gambling, selling of public examination question papers, or any other similar criminal act.

The Explanation gives “theft” a wide meaning here: trick theft, theft from vehicles, homes or business premises, cargo theft, pickpocketing, card skimming, shoplifting and theft from ATMs.

Punishment under Section 112(2) is imprisonment of not less than one year, which may extend to seven years, and fine. Unlike Section 111, Section 112 does not demand the ten year charge-sheet history; it targets street-level gangs.

What changed from the old law

• First general organised crime offence: earlier, organised crime was punished only under State laws such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, and similar statutes. The IPC had only conspiracy and gang offences like Section 401 (now Section 313 BNS) and Section 400 (now Section 310(6)).
• Cyber-crime and economic offences included: syndicates running financial frauds or cyber scams can fall within Section 111 if the other conditions are met.
• Minimum sentences and minimum fines: unusual for the general criminal law, signalling a deterrent approach.
• A new middle category: Section 112 covers gang crime that is too small for Section 111 but more serious than individual theft.

Important case law

Muhammad Rasheed v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533

Justice C.S. Dias granted bail, holding that Section 111 was prima facie not attracted because no charge-sheet had been filed against the accused in the preceding ten years. The definition of continuing unlawful activity requires more than one such charge-sheet with cognizance taken.

Vinay Baghla v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JD:21961

Justice Farjand Ali quashed charges under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) and 111(6) in a fraud case, holding that the provision targets structured, continuing criminal enterprises and cannot be mechanically invoked merely because several persons are accused in a cyber or financial fraud. Trial on the other charges was allowed to continue.

Common confusions

Section 111 vs criminal conspiracy

Conspiracy under Section 61 BNS needs only an agreement to commit an offence. Section 111 needs a syndicate, continuing unlawful activity with prior charge-sheets, unlawful means and material benefit.

Section 111 vs Section 112

Section 111: serious listed crimes, syndicate history, Sessions trial, minimum five years for most acts. Section 112: theft-type street crime by a gang, Magistrate trial, one to seven years.

Section 111 vs terrorist act (Section 113)

Organised crime is motivated by material benefit. A terrorist act under Section 113 BNS is aimed at threatening the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security of India, or striking terror.

For the general public

• Victims of gang extortion, land grabbing or organised fraud should report to police with every document, payment record and threat message. Mention if the same group has earlier cases; that history is central to Section 111.
• Cyber syndicate victims should report at cybercrime.gov.in or call 1930 at once.
• If Section 111 is added to an FIR, examine whether more than one charge-sheet with cognizance exists within ten years. If not, that is a strong ground for bail or quashing.
• Because Section 111 is non-bailable and Sessions-triable, bail applications go to the Sessions Court or High Court.

Exam angle

• Sections 111 and 112 are new offences; there is no IPC equivalent. Expect “Which of these is a new offence in BNS?”
• Syndicate: two or more persons. Continuing unlawful activity: cognizable offence of three years or more, more than one charge-sheet within ten years, cognizance taken.
• Death resulting: death or life and fine of at least Rs 10 lakh.
• Spouse is exempt from the harbouring offence in Section 111(5).
• Petty organised crime: one to seven years; includes selling public exam question papers and ticket touting.

Frequently asked questions

Is Section 111 BNS bailable?

No. Every sub-section of Section 111 is cognizable and non-bailable, and triable by a Court of Session.

What was Section 111 BNS in the IPC?

There was no equivalent. Organised crime is a new offence in the BNS, though State laws like MCOCA dealt with it earlier.

How many people make an organised crime syndicate?

Two or more persons, acting singly or jointly, who indulge in continuing unlawful activity.

What is the punishment under Section 112 BNS?

Imprisonment of at least one year, extendable to seven years, and fine.

Is a previous charge-sheet needed for Section 111?

Yes. The definition requires more than one charge-sheet within the preceding ten years with cognizance taken, as the Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts have stressed.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 111 and 112 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, First Schedule
• Muhammad Rasheed v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
• Vinay Baghla v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JD:21961

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) on 1 July 2024. Key pairs: Section 65B (electronic records) is now Section 63 BSA, Section 27 (discovery) is the proviso to Section 23, Section 32 (dying declaration) is Section 26, Section 45 (experts) is Section 39, and Section 115 (estoppel) is Section 121. The tables below map the key sections and flag every real change.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

The BSA has 170 sections against 167 in the old Act. Its structure and most of its wording follow the 1872 Act closely, so the old case law on relevancy, confessions and burden of proof still applies. The real changes are concentrated in electronic evidence, secondary evidence and a few clean-ups of colonial references.

Definitions and relevancy of facts

Admissions and confessions

Statements by persons who cannot be called, and opinion evidence

Oral, documentary and electronic evidence

Burden of proof and presumptions

Estoppel and privileged communications

Witnesses, examination and impeaching credit

What really changed

Electronic evidence is now mainstream

The BSA treats electronic records as documents in the definition itself, and Section 61 says such a record cannot be refused only because it is electronic. Section 57 makes several kinds of stored electronic records primary evidence, which means the original device need not always be produced.

The new certificate under Section 63

The old 65B certificate was a single document with no fixed format. Section 63(4) now requires a certificate in the form set out in the Schedule each time an electronic record is offered. Part A is signed by the person producing the record and Part B by an expert, and the form asks for details such as the hash value. In Pune Bar Association v. Union of India (May 2026), the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Section 63(4) and held that Part B may be signed by any person the court accepts as an expert in computer science and cyber forensics under Section 39, not only by an Examiner notified under Section 79A of the IT Act.

Secondary evidence widened

Section 58 adds oral and written admissions, and the evidence of a person who has examined documents too voluminous to be examined in court, to the list of secondary evidence.

Colonial clean-up

References to the London Gazette, British Parliament and the Crown have been removed, Section 113 (cession of territory) and Section 166 (jury questions) are gone.

Leading cases that still govern

Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (1946, Privy Council): under Section 27, only that part of the statement which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible. It now applies to the proviso to Section 23 BSA.

Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939, Privy Council): explained “circumstances of the transaction” for dying declarations. It now governs Section 26(a) BSA.

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020): the Supreme Court held that the 65B(4) certificate is a condition precedent for admitting secondary electronic evidence. The same logic is carried into Section 63 BSA.

Common confusions

Section 27 has no number of its own now. Write “proviso to Section 23 BSA”, not “Section 27 BSA”. Section 27 BSA is the old Section 33 on evidence in earlier proceedings.

Section 65B is not 65 BSA. It is Section 63. Section 65 BSA deals with proof of signature and handwriting.

Section 32 BSA is not the dying declaration. Dying declaration is Section 26. Section 32 BSA is the old Section 38 on statements of law in books.

Exam angle

• The BSA has 170 sections. Section 170 is the repeal and savings clause.
• Confession block: 22 (inducement, with old 28 and 29 as provisos), 23 (police confession, with old 27 as proviso), 24 (co-accused).
• Burden of proof shifts by three: 101 to 104, 102 to 105, 103 to 106, 105 to 108, 106 to 109.
• Presumption block shifts by four or five: 113A to 117, 113B to 118, 114 to 119, 114A to 120, 115 to 121.
• Electronic evidence: 2 (definition), 57 (primary), 61 (new), 62 (old 65A), 63 (old 65B), 39(2) (old 45A).

Frequently asked questions

What is Section 65B of the Evidence Act in BSA?

Section 63 BSA. The certificate must now be in the Schedule format with Part A and Part B, and must accompany the record each time it is produced.

What is Section 27 Evidence Act in BSA?

It is the proviso to Section 23 BSA, which admits the part of an accused’s information that leads to discovery of a fact.

Which section of BSA deals with dying declaration?

Section 26(a) BSA, corresponding to Section 32(1) of the old Act.

What is Section 45 Evidence Act in BSA?

Section 39(1) BSA on expert opinion. It now also covers experts in “any other field”.

Which section of BSA deals with estoppel?

Section 121 BSA, which corresponds to Section 115 of the Evidence Act.

Does the old Evidence Act apply to pending cases?

Under Section 170 BSA, proceedings pending before 1 July 2024 are saved. Courts have generally continued to apply the old Act to trials already underway on that date.

Quick quiz

Sources

• The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), Gazette of India
• Ministry of Home Affairs and State police comparison tables: BSA and Indian Evidence Act
• Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 599 of 2026 (Supreme Court)
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014); Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), Supreme Court of India

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, culpable homicide is defined in Section 100 (old Section 299 IPC) and murder in Section 101 (old Section 300 IPC). Every murder is culpable homicide, but not every culpable homicide is murder. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is punished under Section 105 BNS (old Section 304 IPC), which now carries a minimum of five years in its first part.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

Section 100 BNS: culpable homicide

A person commits culpable homicide when he causes death by doing an act with any one of three mental states:

• intention of causing death;
• intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
• knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.

The explanations keep the old rules. Accelerating the death of someone already suffering from a disease is treated as causing death. Death is treated as caused by the injury even if proper treatment might have saved the victim. Killing a child in the mother’s womb is not culpable homicide, but causing the death of a living child after any part of it has been brought forth may be, even if the child has not breathed.

Section 101 BNS: murder

Culpable homicide becomes murder, unless an exception applies, when the act is done:

1. with the intention of causing death;
2. with the intention of causing bodily injury which the offender knows is likely to cause the death of that particular person;
3. with the intention of causing bodily injury “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”; or
4. with knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, and it is done without any excuse.

The five exceptions

Even if a clause of Section 101 is met, the offence drops to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in these cases:

1. Grave and sudden provocation that deprives the offender of self-control, provided it was not sought by him or given by a lawful act or in lawful private defence.
2. Exceeding private defence in good faith and without premeditation.
3. Public servant exceeding lawful powers in good faith, believing the act necessary for his duty, and without ill-will.
4. Sudden fight in the heat of passion, without premeditation, undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct.
5. Consent of the deceased, who must be above eighteen years of age.

The real difference: degree of probability

The best way to understand the two sections is the classic comparison from Reg. v. Govinda (1876), adopted by the Supreme Court. Each clause of murder is a sharper version of a clause of culpable homicide:

“Likely” means death is possible or probable. “Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature” and “imminently dangerous” mean death is highly probable. The higher the probability of death, the closer the case is to murder.

Section 105 BNS: punishment and what changed

• Part I (act done with intention to cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death): life imprisonment, or imprisonment of not less than five years extending to ten years, and fine. Section 304 Part I IPC had no five-year minimum. This is the main change.
• Part II (act done with knowledge, but without such intention): imprisonment up to ten years and fine. The IPC allowed imprisonment, or fine, or both.
• The definitions in Sections 100 and 101 are substantially the same as Sections 299 and 300 IPC, so the old case law continues to apply.

Important case law

• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465: Explained clause 3 of murder. The prosecution must prove that an injury was present, that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury, and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Whether the accused knew it was so serious is irrelevant.
• State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382: Approved the Govinda comparison and explained the three degrees of culpable homicide, with murder as the gravest form.
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605: Laid down the test for grave and sudden provocation: whether a reasonable person of the same class of society, placed in the accused’s situation, would lose self-control. A cooling-off period defeats the exception.

Common confusions

• Section 101 vs Section 103: 101 defines murder; 103 punishes it.
• Section 105 vs Section 106: 105 needs intention or knowledge. 106 (old 304A) covers death by a rash or negligent act where there is no such intention or knowledge.
• Exceptions apply to murder only: They do not make the act lawful. They only reduce the offence to Section 105.

For the general public: what to do

Whether a killing is charged as murder or culpable homicide is decided first by the police in the charge sheet and finally by the Court of Session. Families of the victim can file a protest petition if the charge appears diluted. The accused can argue at the stage of framing of charge that an exception applies. Keep the FIR, post-mortem report and witness details; the nature of injuries in the post-mortem often decides the clause.

Exam angle

• Match: 299 = 100, 300 = 101, 302 = 103, 304 = 105, 304A = 106.
• New five-year minimum in Section 105 Part I is a likely MCQ.
• Virsa Singh four-step test for clause 3 of murder.
• Nanavati: reasonable man test and cooling-off period.
• Exception 5: consent of a person above eighteen years.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between culpable homicide and murder?

Both involve causing death with intention or knowledge. Murder requires a higher degree of probability of death and the absence of any of the five exceptions.

What is the new section for 304 IPC?

Section 304 IPC is now Section 105 BNS. Part I carries life, or five to ten years, with fine.

Which BNS section defines murder?

Section 101 BNS defines murder. Section 103 provides its punishment.

Is Section 105 BNS bailable?

No. It is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session.

Is killing in a sudden fight murder?

Not if there was no premeditation, it happened in the heat of passion, and the offender took no undue advantage or acted cruelly. It then falls under Section 105.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 100, 101, 103 and 105 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: First Schedule
• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
• State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.