Mob lynching, death by negligence and hit and run - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

← All Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita topics Past papers

On this page

1. Murder by a group: section 103(2)
2. Tehseen Poonawalla (2018)
3. Death by rash or negligent act: section 106(1)
4. Hit and run: section 106(2)
5. Cross-reference: dowry death, section 80
6. Problem
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

Two new rules in old chapters. The IPC had no offence of mob lynching and treated every negligent death, however it happened, under one section carrying two years. The BNS adds a group-murder clause, raises the punishment for negligent death, gives doctors a separate lower ceiling, and creates a heavier offence for the driver who kills and runs. That last clause has not been brought into force.

1. Murder by a group: section 103(2)

Section 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 the group shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and fine. The ingredients are:

a murder within s.101, not a lesser homicide;
committed by a group of at least five;
acting in concert, that is with a shared purpose, so each member is liable for the whole; and
on one of the listed grounds or a similar one. A killing by five people over a property dispute falls under s.103(1), not s.103(2).

A parallel clause, s.117(4), punishes each member of such a group who causes grievous hurt on the same grounds, with up to seven years and fine. The general provisions on unlawful assembly and common object (old s.149 IPC) continue to apply as well.

2. Tehseen Poonawalla (2018)

In Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, 2018 INSC 617, (2018) 9 SCC 501, petitions arising out of killings by cow-protection groups and mobs acting on rumours, a three-judge Bench led by Dipak Misra C.J. held that the State has a duty to prevent mob violence and that no person may take the law into his own hands. It issued guidelines in three groups:

Preventive: a nodal officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police in each district; identification of areas where lynching has occurred; police use of their powers to disperse mobs; action against messages on social media that incite violence.
Remedial: prompt FIRs, investigation supervised by the nodal officer, trial by designated or fast-track courts, and a victim compensation scheme.
Punitive: departmental action against officers who fail to act.

The Court also recommended that Parliament create a separate offence for lynching. Section 103(2) is the answer to that recommendation, and the guidelines remain binding on the police.

3. Death by rash or negligent act: section 106(1)

Whoever causes the death of any person by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide is punished with imprisonment up to five years and fine (old s.304A carried two years). If the act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing a medical procedure, the maximum is two years and fine. A registered medical practitioner is one with a qualification recognised under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 whose name is on the National or a State Medical Register.

Rashness is acting with awareness of the risk, hoping it will not happen; negligence is failing to take the care a reasonable person would take.
The death must be the direct result of the act, without the intervention of another's negligence. If there was intention or knowledge within s.100, s.106 does not apply.
Doctors. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 INSC 334, (2005) 6 SCC 1, the Court held that for criminal liability a doctor's negligence must be gross or of a very high degree; an error of judgment or choice of one accepted practice over another is not enough. It also asked for a credible medical opinion before a doctor is prosecuted.
Drunk driving. In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 INSC 18, (2012) 2 SCC 648, a drunk driver ran over pavement-dwellers in Mumbai. His conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (old s.304 Part II) was upheld: driving drunk at speed can carry knowledge that death is likely, which takes the case out of negligence altogether.

4. Hit and run: section 106(2)

Section 106(2) as enacted punishes whoever causes the death of any person by rash and negligent driving of a vehicle, not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, with imprisonment up to ten years and fine. The aim was to stop drivers leaving victims on the road.

When the new laws were notified, truck and transport operators struck work in the first days of January 2024, objecting to the ten-year term. On 2 January 2024 the Union Home Ministry told the All India Motor Transport Congress that the provision had not come into force and would be invoked only after consulting it. The commencement notification, S.O. 850(E) dated 23 February 2024, brought the BNS into force on 1 July 2024 except sub-section (2) of section 106. No later notification bringing it into force could be traced as of November 2026. Fatal accidents, including those where the driver runs, are therefore charged under s.106(1). Check for a fresh notification before the exam.

Trap. Do not write that s.106(2) has been repealed or struck down. It is on the statute book but has not been notified. Separately, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 still imposes a duty on the driver to take the injured to hospital and report the accident, and provides compensation for hit-and-run victims through s.161 of that Act.

5. Cross-reference: dowry death, section 80

Where a woman dies by burns or bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative in connection with a demand for dowry, the death is a “dowry death” and the husband or relative is deemed to have caused it (old s.304B IPC). Punishment: not less than seven years, up to life imprisonment. Dowry has the meaning in s.2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cruelty is separately punished under s.85 (old s.498A). It sits in Chapter V (offences against woman and child), but examiners expect it to be mentioned alongside the homicide sections.

6. Problem

A crowd of about twenty gathers after a rumour that X, a man from another community, is carrying beef. Seven of them beat him to death. Two others only shout slogans. Discuss.

Issue. Whether the offence is murder under s.103(2) and whether those who did not strike are liable.

Law. Section 103(2) applies where five or more acting in concert commit murder on the ground of community, personal belief or a similar ground. Beating a man to death with repeated blows is ordinarily murder under s.101(c) on the Virsa Singh test.

Application. The seven who beat X were a group of more than five, acted together, and killed him because of his community and a belief about his food. Each is liable under s.103(2). The two who shouted slogans are liable if they shared the common purpose and encouraged the attack; mere presence is not enough. The police must act under the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines, and the family is entitled to compensation under the scheme.

Conclusion. The seven are guilty of murder under s.103(2), punishable with death or life imprisonment. The two are liable if participation in the common purpose is proved.

How this is examined

The January 2026 paper asked a 6-mark short note on “Mob lynching”. Write s.103(2) with its ingredients, s.117(4), and the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines. A note on “causing death by negligence” should give s.106(1), the doctor proviso with Jacob Mathew, and the status of s.106(2).