Fractions of terms of punishment
Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with fractions of terms of punishment. In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, [imprinsonment] for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to [imprisonment] for twenty years. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, 4[imprinsonment] for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to 4[imprisonment] for twenty years.
Section 57, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 6 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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
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
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
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
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
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… entitle him to discharge at the time of his application, and it was therefore rightly dismissed, but in saying this, their Lordships are not to be taken as meaning that a life sentence must and in all cases be treated as one of not more than twenty years, or that the convict is necessarily entitled to remission.' Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code has no real bearing on the question raised before us. For calculating fractions of terms of punishment the section provides that transportation for life shall be regarded as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. It does not say that transportation for life shall be deemed to be …
Questions about Section 57
What have the courts held on Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code?
B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India (02 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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 57 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 57, section 57 IPC, section 57 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 57 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 6 (Fractions of terms of punishment), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 57, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.