Sentence of death to be submitted by Court of Session for confirmation
Section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with sentence of death to be submitted by Court of Session for confirmation. When the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall forthwith be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall forthwith be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.
(2) The Court passing the sentence shall commit the convicted person to jail custody under a warrant.
Section 407, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 366 Sentence of death to be submitted by Court of session forconfirmation Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 1
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 Code of Criminal Procedure 366, 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: Reference for confirmation of death sentence - High Court must examine correctness of guilt findings and cannot confirm until appeal period expires or appeal is disposed
-
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case involving rape followed by murder of a defenseless widow, combined with robbery, where the convict is a former police official with a history of seven prior convictions spanning multiple serious crimes, escape from judicial custody, commission of another crime within days of the present crime, and demonstrated lack of reformation potential and future dangerousness to society, the cumulative aggravating circumstances satisfy the 'rarest of rare' test established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and justify capital punishment as the appropriate sentence. The young age of the offender, non-premeditation, or leaving a child victim alive do not constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh these grave aggravating factors. Furthermore, Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. does not mandate a separate hearing date on sentence if the accused has been adequately heard on the question of sentence by the trial court and appellate courts.
On this section: Requires transmission of record to High Court for confirmation of death sentence; Reference No. 3 of 2006 registered under this section
-
Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar vs State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is convicted of heinous crimes in a case involving defective investigation, absence of Test Identification Parade, and delayed witness statements, even if conviction is upheld based on oral testimony, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment applying the principle of prudence established in Swamy Shraddananda and Santosh Kumar Bariyar, unless the circumstances of the case are so exceptional and grave that they override the investigative deficiencies. Further, mere presence in an unlawful assembly without attribution of specific role or overt act does not justify conviction or death sentence - the standard laid down in Baladin must be applied.
On this section: Death Reference procedure; Requires death sentence awarded by designated court to be referred to Supreme Court for confirmation. Death Reference Case (R) No.2 of 2011 was filed in compliance with this section
-
Mohammad Shakir vs State of U. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecution under Section 149 IPC for constructive liability arising from membership in unlawful assembly, proof of overt act by each individual member is not necessary. Mere presence of the accused in an assembly of five or more persons with knowledge of the common unlawful object, and behavior consistent with furtherance of that object (such as surrounding the victim, preventing rescue, possessing weapons, and coordinated departure), is sufficient to establish liability under Section 149 IPC. Further, procedural delays in forwarding FIR to Magistrate do not vitiate the prosecution if the FIR was registered promptly and investigation commenced immediately, and do not affect the credibility of eyewitness testimony or chain of evidence. Additionally, in cases of multiple deaths, the award of death sentence is discretionary and not mandatory; courts may impose life imprisonment based on the circumstances of the case, and mere plurality of victims is not the determinative factor for death sentence.
On this section: Criminal Reference for confirmation of death sentence; reference was answered in the negative (death sentence not confirmed)
-
State Nct of Delhi vs Ajit Seth @ Ajji
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a convict has already served the minimum sentence period imposed by the appellate court and has been released during the pendency of further appeals, executing the death sentence at that stage would be a complete travesty of justice, regardless of the heinous nature of the crime. The appropriate remedy is to dismiss the appeal and uphold the life imprisonment sentence already being served.
On this section: Mandatory confirmation procedure for death sentences; trial court remitted proceedings to High Court under this section for death sentence confirmation
-
State Nct of Delhi vs Ajit Seth @ Ajji
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a crime may be barbaric and premeditated, warranting severe punishment, a death sentence cannot be executed at a stage when the convict has already served the substantive part of his sentence and been released from prison due to prolonged delays in the appellate process; to do so would constitute a travesty of justice. The Court's primary consideration shifted from the nature of the crime to the inequitable circumstances of prolonged delay and the convict's release.
On this section: Mandatory procedure for confirmation of death sentence by High Court; trial court remitted case to High Court under this provision; High Court exercised jurisdiction to review death sentence
-
Nagulapally Arun Kumar (Referred Trial) v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2013-07-04. RT 5/2012 + Crl A 366/2012. K.C. Bhanu / Challa Kodanda Ram DB common judgment. DATE-CHECK flagged trial dates 04-08-2011 / 28-11-2010 (false positive); body ends July 04, 2013. Explicitly: proceedings are submitted under Sub-Section 1 of Section 366 Cr.P.C. Confirms the 302 conviction, refuses confirmation of death, converts to life as not rarest-of-rare. Map crpc 366 cited + bnss 407 successor (near-identical 0.873, decided_under crpc 366). Do not pad ipc 302 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of CrPC 366 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.873). The confirmation-reference holding carries to BNSS 407.
-
Kommuri Veerabhadra Rao (Referred Trial) v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2013-06-27 DATE VERIFIED. RT 6/2012 + Crl A 1230/2012. K.C. Bhanu / Challa Kodanda Ram DB. Explicitly: as the Sessions Judge passed death, proceedings are submitted under subsection (1) of Section 366 Cr.P.C. Points for determination include whether it is rarest-of-rare so as to impose death. Isolates the 366 confirmation duty (independent review of conviction and sentence, Bachan Singh, not automatic confirmation). Map crpc 366 cited + bnss 407 successor (decided_under crpc 366). Do not pad ipc 302 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of CrPC 366 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.873). The confirmation-reference holding carries to BNSS 407.
-
Jasbir Singh @ Jassa vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Inordinate delay in execution of death sentence, though a significant factor, cannot by itself be the sole ground for commutation of death sentence. The delay must be considered along with the nature and gravity of the crime. Time spent in judicial proceedings and review petitions at the instance of the convict should not be counted as delay. Only undue and long delay in disposing of mercy petitions or delay at the instance of the executive is material. In the present case, there is no such inordinate delay, and the heinous nature of the crime (cold-blooded murder of a 16-year-old child for ransom) precludes commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.
On this section: Confirmation of death sentence by High Court and commitment to jail custody
-
State of Odisha vs Laba@kalia Manna
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 366, 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: Reference for confirmation of death sentence; basis for DSREF petition requiring High Court to confirm or modify death sentence
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 407
What have the courts held on Section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 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 CRPC 366, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Reference for confirmation of death sentence - High Court must examine correctness of guilt findings and cannot confirm until appeal period expires or appeal is disposed. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 407 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 407, section 407 BNSS, section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 407 to 412 bnss and bns 407 section. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 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 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 366 (Sentence of death to be submitted by Court of session forconfirmation), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 407, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.