Section 104 punishes murder committed by a person already under sentence of imprisonment for life, with death or with imprisonment for life — and specifies that "imprisonment for life" in this section means the remainder of that person's natural life.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 104 to old IPC Section 303 and itself flags the mapping as "(Change)," and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts.
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 104 | 303 | Substantively changed |
Comparing the two texts word for word: old IPC Section 303 stated that a person already under sentence of imprisonment for life who commits murder "shall be punished with death" — a single, mandatory punishment with no alternative stated. BNS Section 104 instead provides for punishment "with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life" — giving the court a choice between death and a specifically defined life sentence, where the old text gave only one outcome.
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.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 104 applies specifically to a person who, while already serving a sentence of imprisonment for life, commits a fresh murder. It gives the court a choice between death and imprisonment for life, and defines that life sentence expressly as meaning the remainder of the person's natural life — removing any ambiguity about whether such a life sentence could later be reduced or ended early.
This judgment relates to Section 104 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so is presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
Old IPC Section 303 made death the only possible sentence for a life-convict who committed a fresh murder, with no discretion for the court to impose life imprisonment instead, unlike the ordinary murder provision which always allowed both options. A five-judge Constitution Bench struck this mandatory-death rule down as unconstitutional, holding that singling out life-convicts for an inflexible death sentence, while every other murderer could still be sentenced to life imprisonment, had no rational basis and violated the guarantees of equality and fair procedure. Section 104 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reflects this ruling directly: unlike old Section 303, it gives the court the same choice between death and imprisonment for life that applies to murder generally.
Currency check: decided 7 April 1983; this foundational constitutional holding has not been overruled and remains good law.
Yes, under the bare text of old IPC Section 303, death was the only punishment stated. BNS Section 104 gives the court a choice between death and a life sentence meaning the remainder of the person's natural life.
The section expressly defines it as meaning the remainder of that person's natural life, rather than a fixed term or a sentence potentially subject to ordinary remission.
No. Per the BNSS First Schedule, it is non-bailable, cognizable, and triable by the Court of Session.