Language and contents of judgment
Section 393 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with language and contents of judgment. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita, every judgment referred to in section 392,--- (a) shall be written in the language of the Court; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita, every judgment referred to in section 392,---
(a) shall be written in the language of the Court;
(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;
(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) or other law under which, the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced;
(d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
(2) When the conviction is under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Sanhita the offence falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.
(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.
(4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence, unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Sanhita.
(5) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
(6) Every order under section 136 or sub-section (2) of section 157 and every final order made under section 144, section 164 or section 166 shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.
Section 393, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 354 Language and contents of judgment Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
- s. 136 Order to give security
- s. 144 Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents
- s. 157 Procedure where person against whom order is made under section 152 appears to show-cause
- s. 164 Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace
- s. 166 Dispute concerning right of use of land or water
- s. 392 Judgment
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.
-
Sangeet v. State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 354, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2012-11-20. Crl A 490-491/2011. Madan B. Lokur reportable. DATE-CHECK flagged 2009-11-13/18 (false positive: trial conviction/sentence dates); the PDF is the named 20 Nov 2012 reportable. Isolates CrPC 354(3): death is the exception; special reasons must address the crime and the criminal; Machhi Singh 'balance-sheet' counting is critiqued. Map crpc 354 + BNSS 393 successor (near-identical 0.9923). Do not pad ipc 302.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 354 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9923). The special-reasons contents-of-judgment holding carries to BNSS 393.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 354, 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: Language and contents of judgment - death sentence judgment must state special reasons for such sentence
-
Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 354, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When determining whether to impose death sentence or commute it to life imprisonment, courts must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both the crime and the criminal. Even in cases of heinous, planned murders of multiple victims, if mitigating circumstances exist—such as young age at time of commission (23-29 years), economically disadvantaged background, demonstrated capacity for reformation and education during prolonged custody (over 10 years), absence of prior criminal record, and absence of evidence that accused are beyond rehabilitation—the alternative option of life imprisonment is not unquestionably foreclosed. Therefore, death sentences can and should be commuted to life imprisonment in such cases. Life imprisonment is the rule; death sentence is the exception applicable only in the rarest of rare cases.
On this section: Legislative policy mandating that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is exception; applied in sentencing analysis
-
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 354, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the prosecution has conclusively proved guilt of the accused for offences under Sections 302, 377, and 201 IPC through circumstantial evidence combined with scientifically reliable DNA profiling, and the brutal, grotesque, and diabolical nature of the crime would ordinarily warrant capital punishment in the rarest of rare cases, the court must exercise discretion in sentencing by requiring assessment of rehabilitation and reformation potential before imposing death penalty. Legislative policy under Criminal Procedure Code requires courts to state special reasons for death sentences and carefully examine whether accused would be irreformable menace to society before awarding capital punishment, even in cases of heinous crimes against minors involving sexual abuse and murder.
On this section: Procedures for sentencing after conviction - Referenced to require special reasons for imposing death sentence, establishing legislative policy that death penalty requires rigorous justification.
-
Brajendrasingh vs State of M. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 354, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is the exception. Death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the crime is so heinous and brutal that no other punishment except death would serve the ends of justice. In cases where the accused shows genuine remorse, commits the crime in emotional disturbance without premeditation, has no prior criminal history, and the impact of the loss of his entire family already constitutes grave punishment, the court may exercise discretion to commute death sentence to life imprisonment. The presence of mitigating circumstances must be balanced against aggravating circumstances before determining if a case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category.
On this section: Recording of special reasons for death sentence. Court must record special reasons when imposing death penalty, which is the procedural safeguard mandated by Constitution.
-
Subhash Ramkumar Bind @ Vakil vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 354, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Administrative instructions and notes issued by government authorities, even when evidencing policy decisions regarding prohibited weapons, cannot substitute for formal statutory notifications required by law. A statute prescribing death penalty for use of prohibited arms requires strict compliance with the notification requirement in the Official Gazette. Without such formal notification, the weapons cannot be classified as prohibited arms, and the death penalty provision cannot be invoked. Furthermore, death sentence under Section 302 IPC can only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases involving extreme brutality and depravity; generic observations about brutality and defencelessness of victim do not constitute special reasons required by Section 354(3) CrPC; courts must maintain reasonable proportion between crime severity and punishment and must be slow in awarding capital punishment.
On this section: Requirement to state special reasons for death sentence - Court found High Court's reasons inadequate and not meeting statutory requirement
-
State of Odisha vs Laba@kalia Manna
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 354, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, when the chain of circumstances is complete and unerringly points to the guilt of the accused, conviction can be sustained. However, allegations of sexual assault cannot be inferred from genital injuries alone without scientific corroboration such as semen or DNA evidence. Furthermore, in determining whether death sentence should be imposed, the court must apply the 'rarest of rare' doctrine by balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, with life imprisonment being the rule and death sentence being the exception. Death sentence should be imposed only when there is something uncommon about the crime rendering life imprisonment altogether inadequate, and when there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to mitigating circumstances. In cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the irrevocability of death sentence must be a definite factor at the sentencing stage.
On this section: Special reasons for death sentence; court held that death sentence should be imposed only in exceptional cases with special reasons recorded in writing
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 393
What have the courts held on Section 393 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Sangeet v. State of Haryana (20 Nov 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 354, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 354 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9923). The special-reasons contents-of-judgment holding carries to BNSS 393. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2002 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 393 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 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: BNSS 393, section 393 BNSS, section 393 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 393 5 and bnss 393 3. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sangeet v. State of Haryana (20 Nov 2012).
What should I read with Section 393 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 136 (Order to give security), section 144 (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents), section 157 (Procedure where person against whom order is made under section 152 appears to show-cause), section 164 (Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace), and on 2 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 354 (Language and contents of judgment), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 393 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 393 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 393, 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
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 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.