BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1980 SC 898(1983) 3 SCC 470
Non-BailableCognizable: YesCourt of Session
THE STATUTE
Original Text
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Simplified
Section 302 was the cornerstone of Indian homicide law for over 160 years. The sentence is binary: death or life imprisonment (plus fine) — no intermediate option. The choice between death and life was left to judicial discretion until Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) established the 'rarest of rare' doctrine: death should be imposed only where (a) the crime is so heinous it shocks the collective conscience, (b) there is no possibility of reform, and (c) life imprisonment would be wholly inadequate. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) elaborated five categories: manner of commission (extreme brutality), motive (planned depravity), anti-social nature of the crime, magnitude (multiple killings), and nature of victim (child, woman, public servant). The BNS preserves the punishment framework in Section 103 but adds BNS 103(2) specifically for mob lynching — where a group of five or more kills on grounds of race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief, each member faces death or life imprisonment plus mandatory ₹1 lakh fine. The 'number trap': IPC 302 (Murder) → BNS 103. BNS Section 302 is NOT murder — it is about wounding religious sentiments.
Legal Evolution
Section 302's defining cases: Bachan Singh (1980) — 'rarest of rare'; Machhi Singh (1983) — categories of capital cases; Nirbhaya execution (2020) — four accused executed for 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder; Dhananjoy Chatterjee (2004) — first execution in India after a 14-year gap.
Landmark Precedents
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
RELEVANCE
Established the 'rarest of rare' doctrine — courts must balance aggravating and mitigating factors before awarding capital punishment.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
RELEVANCE
Elaborated five categories of rarest-of-rare cases: manner of commission, motive, extent of crime, nature of victim, and social impact.
Practical Scenarios
"Premeditated shooting at point-blank range with clear intent to kill."
"Administering slow poison knowing it will cause death."
"A mob of 6 killing a person on caste grounds — BNS 103(2) with mandatory ₹1 lakh fine."
Common Queries
IPC 302 (Murder) is now BNS Section 103. CRITICAL EXAM TRAP: BNS Section 302 is NOT murder — it deals with wounding religious sentiments. For any murder case after July 1, 2024, cite 'BNS Section 103'.
No. Under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, the death penalty is awarded only in exceptional cases. Life imprisonment is the norm; death requires special reasons recorded in writing showing the crime belongs to the narrowest category of the most heinous offences.
Murder requires: (1) intentional killing, or (2) injury with knowledge that it will likely cause death, or (3) injury sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death — with no provocation or sudden fight exception. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304) involves lower degrees of intent — sudden quarrel, grave and sudden provocation, or knowledge that the act might cause death but without certainty. The distinction is one of degree of intent and is the most contested question in homicide trials.
Established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the doctrine holds that the death penalty should be imposed only in cases where the crime is so brutal, premeditated, or heinous that it shocks the collective conscience — and where life imprisonment would be wholly inadequate. Courts must consider both the crime and the criminal. Aggravating factors: multiple murders, killing of minors, extreme brutality, systematic killing. Mitigating factors: young age, mental illness, no criminal history, acting under pressure.
Yes — though difficult. Indian courts have convicted on circumstantial evidence without a body when: the accused was last seen with the deceased; the accused had motive; the accused's conduct after the disappearance is inconsistent with innocence (absconding, false statements); and there is forensic evidence (blood, DNA). The Supreme Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) upheld conviction without a body based on strong circumstantial evidence.
Section 34 (common intention) makes every member of a group equally liable for an act done in furtherance of common intention. If five people attack a victim together with common intention to kill and the victim dies, all five are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 — even if only one dealt the fatal blow. The common intention must exist at the time of the act; it can form spontaneously.
Life imprisonment — there is no provision for a lesser sentence for murder. The choice is between life imprisonment and the death penalty. Courts cannot impose a fixed term like 10 or 20 years for murder under Section 302. However, the Section 432–433 CrPC power of remission may allow release after serving a minimum period set by the government.
Yes. BNS Section 103 replaces IPC 302. Sub-section (1) is identical to IPC 302 — death or life for murder. Sub-section (2) is entirely new: mob lynching — when 5 or more persons acting in concert murder someone based on race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief, every member of the group faces death or life imprisonment. This is India's first statutory mob lynching provision.