Fractions of terms of punishment
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with fractions of terms of punishment. In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years unless otherwise provided. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years unless otherwise provided.
Section 6, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 57 Fractions of terms of punishment Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 57, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In review petitions arising from cases where death penalty has been awarded, a limited oral hearing of a maximum of thirty minutes per side in open Court is mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution as a just, fair and reasonable procedure, as a distinct exception to the general rule established in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court. This exception is justified because: (1) death penalty is irreversible and results in deprivation of the most fundamental right to life; (2) different judicially trained minds applying the 'rarest of rare' sentencing doctrine can reach diametrically opposite conclusions on identical facts; and (3) even a remote chance of deviating from an original decision in a death sentence case justifies oral hearing as part of a 'reasonable procedure' under Article 21. All cases in which death sentence has been awarded by the High Court shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Judges under Supreme Court Rules 2013 Order VI Rule 3.
On this section: Fractions of terms - imprisonment for life is reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years only for calculation purposes, not limiting actual life imprisonment duration
-
State of Haryana vs Pirthi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 57, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A life convict has a legal right to have his case for pre-mature release considered under the remission policy or scheme existing on the date of his conviction, not the policy prevailing on the date when his case is considered for pre-mature release. This right is grounded in the Prisons Act 1894, constitutional safeguards under Articles 20(1) and 21, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. When a remission policy is referable to the constitutional power under Article 161, it represents a constitutional mandate superior to statutory restrictions under Section 433-A CrPC, and cannot be retrospectively replaced by a stricter policy. The State must exercise its power of remission and clemency keeping in view the expectation crystallized in favor of the convict at the time of his conviction, and benefits should be construed liberally in favor of the convict.
On this section: Relates to remission; cited in context of jail code provisions
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 57, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences at one trial, including one offence for which the sentence is life imprisonment, the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which limits aggregate imprisonment to 14 years, applies to prevent consecutive sentences. All sentences must run concurrently because life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire remaining life of the convict, and the concept of consecutive sentences does not apply when one sentence is life imprisonment. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 CrPC includes life imprisonment as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897, and life imprisonment is not equivalent to 14 years or 20 years but means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict's natural life unless remitted by the appropriate Government.
On this section: Provides that transportation for life (now imprisonment for life) shall be regarded as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years for calculating fractions of terms; Court held this does not mean life imprisonment is only 20 years for all purposes
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 57, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences including one for which life imprisonment is the sentence, all sentences imposed under the Indian Penal Code must run concurrently rather than consecutively, because life imprisonment extends for the entire remaining span of the convicted person's natural life and is not confined to any definite period. The proviso to subsection (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which limits aggregate punishment to 14 years in cases of consecutive sentences, precludes the imposition of consecutive sentences when life imprisonment forms part of the conviction, as this would exceed the statutory limit. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 Cr.P.C includes life imprisonment, and life imprisonment means imprisonment for the full span of life unless commuted by the appropriate Government under Sections 55, 433, or 433A of Cr.P.C.
On this section: Calculating fractions of terms; interpreted to apply only to calculating punishment fractions, not to reduce life imprisonment to 20 years
-
Subash Chander vs Krishan Lal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 57, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where evidence conclusively establishes guilt of accused for heinous crimes like murder of a sleeping family by persons previously involved in witness elimination, and where the High Court has exercised its discretion to commute death sentence to life imprisonment based on general conspectus of facts, the Supreme Court should not interfere with such discretion merely because a 'rarest of rare case' standard might be met. However, where there exists imminent danger to surviving family members from a desperate criminal and where the accused himself voluntarily undertakes on instructions that he shall never seek premature release or commutation, the court can impose an exceptional condition making the life sentence truly a natural life sentence from which no relief can be granted under any statute or jail rules. Life imprisonment in Indian law means imprisonment for the entire natural life of the convicted person unless commuted by the appropriate Government, and it does not automatically expire at the end of any specific period including 20 years.
On this section: Calculation of fractions of terms of punishment; court held this does not automatically cap life imprisonment at 20 years
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 6
What have the courts held on Section 6 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India (02 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 57, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Fractions of terms - imprisonment for life is reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years only for calculation purposes, not limiting actual life imprisonment duration. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2014.
How do I find court cases under Section 6 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 6, section 6 BNS, section 6 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India (02 Sep 2014).
What should I read with Section 6 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 57 (Fractions of terms of punishment), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 6 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 6, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.