Author: Lexfolio Team

Section 384 IPC is now Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The punishment for extortion has been raised from up to three years to up to seven years, or fine, or both. The whole old group of Sections 383 to 389 IPC now sits inside one provision, Section 308 BNS, with seven sub-sections.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 308 BNS says

Section 308(1) defines extortion. A person commits extortion when he intentionally puts another person in fear of injury (to that person or to anyone else) and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed that can be converted into a valuable security.

Ingredients in simple words

• Intentional fear of injury: the accused must deliberately create fear. “Injury” is wide and covers harm to body, mind, reputation or property.
• Dishonest inducement: the fear must be used to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.
• Delivery of property: the victim must actually hand over property, a valuable security, or a signed or sealed paper that can become one. Without delivery, the completed offence of extortion is not made out.
• Consent obtained by fear: the victim parts with the property “willingly” but only because of the fear. This vitiated consent is the heart of extortion.

The illustrations carried over from the IPC still teach the idea: threatening to publish a defamatory libel unless money is paid, or threatening to keep a child in wrongful confinement unless a promissory note is signed, are classic extortion.

Old IPC sections and their new BNS numbers

Note the order. The BNS places the “attempt type” offence before the completed offence in each pair, so 387 comes before 386, and 389 comes before 388. Students often reverse these in exams.

What changed from the IPC

• Higher punishment for simple extortion: the maximum jumped from three years under Section 384 IPC to seven years under Section 308(2) BNS. This is the change most searchers are looking for.
• One consolidated section: seven IPC sections (383 to 389) were merged into one section with sub-sections.
• Life imprisonment limb dropped: Sections 388 and 389 IPC provided for life imprisonment where the threatened accusation was of an offence under Section 377 IPC. Since the BNS has no equivalent of Section 377, that limb does not appear in Section 308(6) and (7).
• Rest unchanged: the punishments for the old 385, 386, 387, 388 and 389 equivalents remain the same in substance.

Important case law

R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1986) 2 SCC 716

The Supreme Court set out the ingredients of extortion: intentional putting in fear of injury, dishonest inducement, and delivery of property as a result. This remains the standard starting point.

Dhananjay alias Dhandhanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2007) 14 SCC 768

The Court treated actual delivery of property as essential for the completed offence under Section 384 IPC. Where nothing was handed over, extortion under Section 384 was not made out.

Somasundaram v. State (2020) 7 SCC 722

A three-judge bench upheld a conviction under Section 387 IPC even though no property was delivered, because that section punishes putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion.

M/s Balaji Traders v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 806

Decided on 5 June 2025 by Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra. The Court held that the High Court was wrong to insist on delivery of property for Section 387 IPC (now Section 308(4) BNS). Section 387 is an independent, preparatory offence, so the commission of extortion is not essential for it. Dhananjay was distinguished because it dealt with Section 384.

Common confusions

Extortion vs robbery

Extortion becomes robbery under Section 309(3) BNS when the offender is present, puts the victim in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, and so induces immediate delivery on the spot. In extortion the fear can relate to the future and delivery can come later.

Extortion vs cheating

In cheating (Section 318 BNS), consent is obtained by deception. In extortion, consent is obtained by fear. The victim of cheating is fooled; the victim of extortion is frightened.

Completed extortion vs putting in fear

If the threat is made but no property is delivered, charge the preparatory sub-section: 308(3), 308(4) or 308(6), depending on the type of fear. Section 308(2), 308(5) or 308(7) needs actual delivery.

For the general public: what to do

• Preserve evidence: keep screenshots, call recordings, chat logs, UPI or bank transfer records and the numbers used. Do not delete threatening messages.
• Report to police: extortion is cognizable, so the police must register an FIR. You may also use the zero FIR facility at any police station or e-FIR where your State allows it.
• Online extortion and sextortion: report at cybercrime.gov.in or helpline 1930 promptly, especially if money has been transferred, so the transaction can be flagged.
• Do not keep paying: payment rarely ends the demand. Note every payment made, as it proves delivery of property for Section 308(2).
• If falsely accused: since Section 308(2) is non-bailable, bail lies with the court. Anticipatory bail can be sought under Section 482 BNSS before the Sessions Court or High Court.

Exam angle

• 384 IPC = 308(2) BNS; punishment raised from 3 to 7 years. Very likely one-liner.
• Match the pairs: 386 = 308(5), 387 = 308(4), 388 = 308(7), 389 = 308(6).
• Delivery of property is essential for completed extortion but not for Section 308(4) (Balaji Traders, 2025).
• Robbery can be committed through extortion (Section 309(3)); remember the triad of presence, instant fear and immediate delivery.
• The Section 377 linked life imprisonment limb of 388 and 389 IPC is absent in BNS.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 384 IPC?

Section 384 IPC is now Section 308(2) of the BNS. The definition formerly in Section 383 IPC is in Section 308(1).

What is the punishment for extortion under BNS?

Up to seven years of imprisonment, or fine, or both, under Section 308(2). Extortion by fear of death or grievous hurt carries up to ten years and fine under Section 308(5).

Is Section 308 BNS bailable?

Section 308(2) is non-bailable and cognizable. Section 308(3), putting a person in fear of injury to commit extortion, is bailable.

Is extortion compoundable under BNSS?

No. Section 308 is not listed in the compounding table of Section 359 BNSS, so the parties cannot settle it on their own. Quashing on settlement can be sought only from the High Court.

Is a threat without payment extortion?

Not completed extortion. It is punishable as putting a person in fear in order to commit extortion under Section 308(3), (4) or (6), depending on the threat.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 308 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, First Schedule and Section 359
• M/s Balaji Traders v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 806, Supreme Court of India
• Somasundaram v. State (2020) 7 SCC 722; R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1986) 2 SCC 716

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 376 IPC is now Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Rape is punishable with rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, along with fine. The definition of rape, earlier in Section 375 IPC, is now in Section 63 BNS.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

The definition: Section 63 BNS

Section 63 keeps the structure of old Section 375. It lists the acts in clauses (a) to (d) and makes them rape in seven circumstances: against her will; without her consent; consent obtained by fear; consent based on a false belief that he is her husband; consent given when she cannot understand its nature (unsound mind or intoxication); when she is under eighteen, with or without consent; and when she cannot communicate consent.

Explanation 2 defines consent as an unequivocal voluntary agreement, and adds that lack of physical resistance does not by itself mean consent.

There are two exceptions. A medical procedure or intervention is not rape. Sexual acts by a man with his own wife are not rape, but only if the wife is not under eighteen years of age.

What Section 64 BNS says

Section 64(1) is the general punishment.

Section 64(2) covers aggravated situations, in clauses (a) to (m), where the offender misuses power, trust or the victim’s vulnerability. Examples are a police officer or public servant against a woman in custody, a member of the armed forces in an area of deployment, staff of a jail, remand home, institution or hospital, a relative, guardian or teacher, rape during communal violence, rape of a pregnant or disabled woman, and repeated rape. The minimum stays at ten years, but life imprisonment here means the remainder of the person’s natural life.

Related sections in the same chapter

Section 65: victims under 16 and under 12

Section 65(1) applies where the woman is under sixteen: rigorous imprisonment of not less than twenty years, extendable to life for the remainder of natural life, with fine. Section 65(2), for a victim under twelve, has the same minimum, with death also possible. In both, the fine goes to the victim for medical expenses and rehabilitation.

Section 70: gang rape

Where a woman is raped by persons forming a group or acting in common intention, each is deemed to have committed rape. Under Section 70(1), each faces rigorous imprisonment of not less than twenty years, extendable to life for the remainder of natural life, with fine. Under Section 70(2), where the woman is under eighteen, the punishment is life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life with fine, or death.

Other provisions

• Section 66 (old 376A): causing death or a persistent vegetative state.
• Sections 67 and 68 (old 376B and 376C): husband during separation; person in authority.
• Section 69 (new): sexual intercourse by deceitful means, such as a false promise of marriage.
• Section 71 (old 376E): repeat offenders.

Victim identity protection: Section 72 BNS

Section 72 (old Section 228A IPC) makes it an offence to print or publish the name, or any matter that may make known the identity, of a victim of an offence under Sections 64 to 71. The punishment is imprisonment up to two years and fine. The exceptions are narrow: police acting in good faith for investigation, the victim herself or with her written authorisation, and next of kin (through a recognised welfare organisation) where the victim has died, is a child or is of unsound mind. Section 73 bars publishing such court proceedings without permission.

What changed from the IPC

• Renumbering: 375 became 63, 376 became 64, 376(3) became 65(1), 376AB became 65(2), and 376D became 70(1).
• The two separate gang rape provisions for girls under 16 and under 12 (376DA and 376DB) are replaced by one provision, Section 70(2), for all victims under eighteen.
• Exception 2 to Section 63 now expressly uses the age of eighteen for the wife, in line with the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling.

Time limits and victim rights under the BNSS

Important case law

• Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017): the Supreme Court read down the marital exception so that it did not protect sexual intercourse with a wife under eighteen.
• Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018): no disclosure of a victim’s identity in any media, and rape and POCSO FIRs are not to be placed in the public domain.
• State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022): the Court condemned the two-finger test as unscientific and held that persons conducting it would be guilty of misconduct.

Common confusions

• Section 64 vs Section 63: Section 63 defines; Section 64 punishes.
• Section 69 vs Section 64: Section 69 applies only where the act does not amount to rape.
• BNS vs POCSO: where the victim is a child, the POCSO Act, 2012 also applies.

Practical guidance for survivors and families

• Information can be given at any police station and is recorded by a woman officer. Any hospital must give free immediate treatment.
• If police refuse to register it, send it in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police (Section 173(4)), then approach the Magistrate.
• Free legal aid is available through the District Legal Services Authority.

Exam angle

• 375 to 63, 376 to 64, 376A to 66, 376D to 70, 228A to 72.
• Minimum sentences: 10 years (64), 20 years (65, 70(1)), death possible under 65(2), 66, 70(2) and 71.
• BNSS time limits: 2 months investigation (193(2)), 2 months trial (346), 7 days medical report (184), 90 days progress update (193(3)).

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 376 IPC?

Section 376 IPC is now Section 64 BNS. The definition of rape is in Section 63 BNS.

Is Section 64 BNS bailable?

No. It is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by a Court of Session.

What is the minimum punishment for rape under BNS?

Rigorous imprisonment of ten years under Section 64. It is twenty years where the victim is under sixteen (Section 65) or in gang rape (Section 70(1)).

Is disclosing a rape victim’s name a crime?

Yes. Section 72 BNS punishes it with up to two years’ imprisonment and fine, subject to narrow exceptions.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 63 to 73
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 173, 176, 184, 193, 346, 366, 397 and First Schedule
• Independent Thought v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2017)
• Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2018)
• State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (Supreme Court, 2022)

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 363 IPC is now Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 137 also absorbs the old Sections 359, 360 and 361 IPC, and punishes kidnapping with imprisonment up to seven years and fine. The BNS now protects every child under eighteen, boy or girl, from kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 137 BNS says

Section 137(1) describes two kinds of kidnapping.

Kidnapping from India: Section 137(1)(a)

Conveying any person beyond the limits of India without that person’s consent, or without the consent of someone legally authorised to consent on his behalf. This was Section 360 IPC.

Kidnapping from lawful guardianship: Section 137(1)(b)

Taking or enticing a child, or a person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without the guardian’s consent. This was Section 361 IPC. “Lawful guardian” includes any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of the child.

The ingredients are:

1. The victim is a child (under eighteen) or a person of unsound mind.
2. The accused took or enticed the victim.
3. The victim was taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian.
4. The guardian did not consent.

The child’s own consent is irrelevant. The law protects the guardian’s right of custody and the child’s safety.

The exception

The section does not apply to a person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or entitled to its lawful custody, unless the act is done for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

What changed from the IPC

• Age made gender neutral: Section 361 IPC protected boys under sixteen and girls under eighteen. Section 137 BNS uses the word “child”, meaning anyone under eighteen, so boys aged sixteen and seventeen are now protected.
• Consolidation: four IPC sections (359, 360, 361, 363) are now one section.
• The punishment (up to seven years and fine) is unchanged.

Abduction: Section 138 BNS

Section 138 (old 362 IPC) defines abduction: compelling a person by force, or inducing him by deceitful means, to go from any place. Abduction is not punished on its own. It becomes an offence when done for a purpose listed in Sections 140 and following, such as murder, ransom or wrongful confinement.

Section 139 BNS: kidnapping or maiming a child for begging

• 139(1): kidnapping a child, or obtaining custody of a child without being the lawful guardian, so that the child may be employed for begging. Rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years, extendable to life, and fine.
• 139(2): maiming a child for begging. Imprisonment of not less than twenty years, extendable to life for the remainder of natural life, and fine.
• 139(3): a person who is not the lawful guardian and uses a child for begging is presumed to have kidnapped or obtained custody of the child for that purpose, unless proved otherwise.

This is a major change. Under Section 363A IPC, ten years was the maximum for kidnapping a minor for begging. It is now the minimum.

Section 140 BNS: aggravated kidnapping or abduction

Sections 140(1), 140(2) and 140(4) are cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session. Section 140(2) newly names an “international inter-governmental organisation” among those who may be coerced, which Section 364A IPC did not mention.

Important case law

• S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1965): where a minor girl close to majority left her guardian’s home on her own and joined the accused, without any inducement or active role by him, the Supreme Court held this was not “taking” out of lawful guardianship. Active participation by the accused is needed.
• Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (1973): the Court clarified that if the accused had earlier laid the groundwork, through promises or persuasion, that led the minor to leave, it can still amount to taking or enticing, even if the minor left on her own at the last step.

Common confusions

• Kidnapping vs abduction: kidnapping from guardianship needs a child or person of unsound mind, and consent of the victim is irrelevant. Abduction can be of anyone, but needs force or deceit. Kidnapping is complete once the victim is taken; abduction is a continuing offence.
• Parental custody disputes: one parent taking a child from the other is often a custody issue for the family court, especially where the exception or lawful entitlement applies.
• Section 137 vs 140(2): ordinary kidnapping is bailable with up to seven years; kidnapping for ransom carries death or life.

Practical guidance for the public

• If a child is missing, go to the nearest police station immediately. A cognizable offence must be registered as an FIR; no waiting period applies.
• Carry a recent photograph, details of clothing, phone numbers, and names of friends or suspects.
• Information can also be shared with Childline (1098) and the Emergency Response helpline (112).
• If the police refuse to register the case, send the information in writing to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, and approach the Magistrate if needed.

Exam angle

• 359, 360, 361, 363 IPC to 137 BNS; 362 to 138; 363A to 139; 364, 364A, 365, 367 to 140(1) to (4).
• Age of a child for kidnapping from guardianship: eighteen for both sexes under the BNS.
• Section 139: ten years is now the minimum (earlier the maximum under 363A).
• Section 140(2) adds “international inter-governmental organisation”.
• Varadarajan (1965) and Vadgama (1973) on the meaning of “taking”.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 363 IPC?

Section 363 IPC is now Section 137(2) of the BNS.

Is kidnapping bailable under BNS?

Simple kidnapping under Section 137(2) is bailable and cognizable. Kidnapping for begging (Section 139) and kidnapping for murder or ransom (Section 140(1) and (2)) are non-bailable.

What is the new section for 364A IPC (kidnapping for ransom)?

Section 140(2) BNS, punishable with death or imprisonment for life and fine.

What is the age of a child for kidnapping under BNS?

Under eighteen years, for both boys and girls.

What is the difference between kidnapping and abduction?

Kidnapping from guardianship concerns children or persons of unsound mind and ignores the victim’s consent; abduction concerns any person moved by force or deceit.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 137 to 140
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 173 and First Schedule
• S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (Supreme Court, 1965)
• Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court, 1973)

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 354 IPC is now Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty is punishable with imprisonment of not less than one year, which may extend to five years, along with fine. The offence is cognizable and non-bailable.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 74 BNS says

Section 74 punishes a person who assaults a woman or uses criminal force on her, either intending to outrage her modesty or knowing that it is likely to do so. The offence is gender neutral as to the offender: “whoever” commits it can be charged. The victim must be a woman.

Ingredients

1. The victim is a woman.
2. The accused used assault or criminal force on her. Words alone are not enough for this section.
3. The accused intended to outrage her modesty, or knew it was likely to be outraged.

The heart of the offence is the accused’s intention or knowledge. Courts infer it from the circumstances: the nature of the act, the place, the time and the conduct before and after.

What is “modesty”?

The BNS does not define modesty. Courts have treated it as an attribute connected with a woman’s sense of decency and dignity. The test is objective: would the act, judged by the common notions of society, be seen as an affront to a woman’s decency? Because the test turns on the act and the accused’s intention, even a very young girl can be a victim.

What changed from the IPC

Section 74 reproduces Section 354 IPC with the same punishment (minimum one year, maximum five years, with fine) and the same classification. The change is the number. The related offences added to the IPC in 2013 have also moved:

Sections 75 to 78 BNS in brief

Section 75: sexual harassment

A man commits sexual harassment by unwelcome physical contact and explicit sexual advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, showing pornography against a woman’s will, or making sexually coloured remarks. The first three carry rigorous imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both. Sexually coloured remarks carry imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both.

Section 76: assault with intent to disrobe

Assault or criminal force on a woman, or abetting it, with intent to disrobe her or compel her to be naked. Punishment: three to seven years and fine. Cognizable and non-bailable.

Section 77: voyeurism

Watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a private act where she would expect not to be observed, or disseminating such an image. First conviction: one to three years and fine. Second or subsequent conviction: three to seven years and fine. Consent to capture an image is not consent to share it. Cognizable; bailable on first conviction, non-bailable afterwards.

Section 78: stalking

Following a woman and repeatedly contacting or attempting to contact her despite clear disinterest, or monitoring her internet, email or electronic communication. First conviction: up to three years and fine. Subsequent conviction: up to five years and fine. Cognizable; bailable on first conviction, non-bailable afterwards. There are defences for crime prevention under State authority, compliance with law, and reasonable and justified conduct.

Important case law

• State of Punjab v. Major Singh: the Supreme Court held that an act against a very young girl could outrage her modesty, applying a test based on what a reasonable person would consider an affront to a woman’s modesty.
• Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995): the Court held that slapping a woman on her posterior in a gathering was an affront to her decency, and refused to quash the case under Sections 354 and 509 IPC. The ultimate test is whether the act is capable of shocking a woman’s sense of decency.

Common confusions

• Section 74 vs Section 79: Section 74 needs physical assault or criminal force. Section 79 covers words, sounds, gestures, objects shown or intrusion on privacy, without physical force.
• Section 74 vs Section 75: Section 75 covers sexual harassment by a man in four listed forms. Where force is used with the required intent, Section 74 applies, and both may be charged together where the facts support it.
• Non-bailable does not mean no bail: bail is at the court’s discretion, not a right.

Practical guidance for the public

• A complaint can be made at any police station. Under the proviso to Section 173(1) BNSS, information from a woman about offences under Sections 74 to 79 is recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
• Note dates, places, witnesses and preserve CCTV footage, messages or call records.
• If the police refuse to register the FIR, send the information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police (Section 173(4) BNSS), and then approach the Magistrate.
• Workplace incidents can also be taken to the Internal Committee under the POSH Act, 2013, alongside the criminal complaint.

Exam angle

• 354 to 74, 354A to 75, 354B to 76, 354C to 77, 354D to 78.
• Section 74 carries a minimum of one year; Section 76 a minimum of three years.
• Voyeurism and stalking: bailable on first conviction, non-bailable on repeat conviction.
• The offender under Section 74 can be any person; under Sections 75, 77 and 78 the BNS text refers to “a man”.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 354 IPC?

Section 354 IPC is now Section 74 of the BNS.

Is Section 74 BNS bailable?

No. It is cognizable and non-bailable, so bail is at the court’s discretion.

Is Section 74 BNS compoundable?

No. It is not listed in the compounding tables of Section 359 BNSS, so it cannot be settled by compromise.

What is the punishment under Section 74 BNS?

Imprisonment of not less than one year, which may extend to five years, and fine.

Which court tries Section 74 BNS?

Any Magistrate.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 74 to 79
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 173 and 359, and First Schedule
• State of Punjab v. Major Singh (Supreme Court)
• Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (Supreme Court, 1995)

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 34 IPC (common intention) is now Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 120A and 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) are now Section 61 BNS. Section 3(5) is not an offence by itself; it makes each participant liable for a crime done jointly. Section 61 is a separate offence that is complete on agreement in most cases.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

Section 3(5) BNS: common intention

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of them is liable for that act as if he alone had done it. The wording is carried over from Section 34 IPC; only its place has changed. It now sits as a sub-section of Section 3 (General explanations) of the BNS rather than as a standalone section.

Ingredients

• A criminal act done by more than one person.
• A common intention shared by all, meaning a prior meeting of minds. It may form on the spot, just before the act.
• Participation by each accused in some way in carrying out that intention. Presence and support can be enough; each person need not strike a blow.

Because Section 3(5) is only a rule of liability, it is always read with a main offence, for example “Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) BNS”.

Section 61 BNS: criminal conspiracy

Section 61(1) defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means. Section 61(2) gives the punishment.

Ingredients

• Two or more persons.
• An agreement between them.
• The object is an illegal act, or a lawful act by illegal means.
• Where the object is not itself an offence, some act besides the agreement must be done by one or more parties in pursuance of it (the overt act proviso).

So an agreement to commit an offence is punishable even if nothing more happens. The Explanation adds that it does not matter whether the illegal act is the ultimate object or only incidental to it.

Punishment

• 61(2)(a): for a conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of two years or more, where no express provision exists, the conspirator is punished as if he had abetted that offence.
• 61(2)(b): any other criminal conspiracy is punishable with imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both.

What changed from the IPC

• Section 34 to Section 3(5): Same rule, new location. All Section 34 case law continues to apply.
• Sections 120A and 120B to Section 61: The definition and punishment are merged into one section with sub-sections. The two-tier punishment and the overt act proviso are retained.
• Evidence rule: Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act (statements and acts of a conspirator in reference to the common design) is now Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
• Common object: Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly) is now Section 190 BNS.

Acts done before 1 July 2024 continue under the IPC provisions.

Important case law

• Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1: A man who stood guard outside while others shot a postmaster was held liable for murder. Participation need not be the fatal act itself; in the Privy Council’s words, “they also serve who only stand and wait”.
• Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118: Common intention needs a prior meeting of minds. Same or similar intention held independently is not enough.
• Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216: Common intention may develop on the spot, but it must exist before the act and must be proved, not assumed from the fact that several people attacked together.
• Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609: Conspiracy is rarely proved by direct evidence. The agreement can be inferred from proved circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
• State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659: A person who knows the unlawful object and agrees to it is a conspirator, even without knowing every detail or every other conspirator.

Common confusions

Common intention vs criminal conspiracy

• Section 3(5) needs a criminal act actually done jointly. Section 61 is complete on agreement (for an offence), even if the act never happens.
• Section 3(5) creates no offence; Section 61 is an offence with its own punishment.
• Physical participation matters in Section 3(5). A conspirator under Section 61 may never be present at the scene.

Common intention vs common object (Section 190 BNS)

• Section 3(5) needs two or more persons and a prior meeting of minds.
• Section 190 needs an unlawful assembly of five or more persons and a common object; no prior concert is required.
• Section 190 is a separate offence-creating provision; Section 3(5) is not.

For the general public: what to do

• If you are named with others in an FIR: Check whether Section 3(5) or Section 61 is added. Your liability depends on the main offence, so bail and court follow that offence.
• Defence points: Absence from the scene, lack of any prior meeting of minds, or no evidence of agreement are common grounds raised at the bail and discharge stages.
• Complainants: Preserve call records, messages, CCTV footage and witness names that show planning or joint action. These help prove the shared intention or agreement.

Exam angle

• 34 IPC = 3(5) BNS; 120A/120B IPC = 61 BNS; 149 IPC = 190 BNS; 10 IEA = 8 BSA.
• Section 3(5) is a rule of evidence and liability, not an offence (Barendra Kumar Ghosh).
• Overt act is needed only where the object of conspiracy is not an offence.
• 61(2)(b): six months, or fine, or both; non-cognizable and bailable.
• Mahbub Shah: similar intention is not common intention.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 34 IPC?

Section 34 IPC is now Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the same wording.

What is the new section for 120B IPC?

Criminal conspiracy (Sections 120A and 120B IPC) is now Section 61 BNS. Section 61(1) defines it and Section 61(2) punishes it.

Is Section 61 BNS bailable?

It depends on the object. A conspiracy to commit a serious offence follows that offence; any other conspiracy under 61(2)(b) is bailable and non-cognizable.

Can a person be punished under Section 3(5) alone?

No. Section 3(5) must be read with a substantive offence such as murder or robbery.

What is the difference between Section 3(5) and Section 190 BNS?

Section 3(5) needs two or more persons with a prior shared intention. Section 190 needs an unlawful assembly of five or more with a common object.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 3(5), 61 and 190 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: First Schedule
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Section 8
• Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1
• Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 307 IPC is now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Attempt to murder is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years and fine, and with life imprisonment if hurt is caused. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 109 BNS says

Section 109 punishes a person who does an act with such intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances, that if death had resulted he would have been guilty of murder. In plain terms, the law asks one question: had the victim died, would this have been murder? If yes, the act is an attempt to murder even though the victim survived.

Ingredients the prosecution must prove

• An act done by the accused.
• Intention or knowledge of the kind described in Section 101 BNS (the murder definition).
• Circumstances such that death, if caused, would amount to murder.
• The act did not cause death.

Injury is not an ingredient for the basic offence. A shot that misses can still be attempt to murder. Injury matters only for the higher punishment.

Three levels of punishment

• No hurt caused: imprisonment of either description up to ten years, and fine.
• Hurt caused: life imprisonment, or the ten-year punishment above.
• Section 109(2), life convict who causes hurt: death, or life imprisonment meaning the remainder of natural life.

What changed from Section 307 IPC

• Number change: Section 307 became Section 109. Ingredients and the ten-year and life ranges are the same.
• Structure: The life convict clause, which was a second paragraph in Section 307, is now a separate sub-section, Section 109(2).
• Clearer meaning of life: Section 109(2) states that life imprisonment there means the remainder of the person’s natural life.
• Related section: Attempt to commit culpable homicide (old Section 308 IPC) is now Section 110 BNS.

Offences committed before 1 July 2024 remain under Section 307 IPC.

Important case law

• Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782: The Supreme Court held that the act need not be the last act before death. A series of acts, such as deliberately starving a person, can amount to attempt to murder.
• State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28: The Court held that for conviction under Section 307 it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Intention or knowledge is the test.
• State of M.P. v. Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554: The nature of the injury is not decisive. The court looks at intention gathered from the weapon, the manner of attack and the surrounding facts.
• Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466: Section 307 is non-compoundable, but the High Court may in suitable cases quash proceedings on a settlement, after examining the nature of injuries, the weapon and whether the charge is properly framed.

Common confusions

Attempt to murder or grievous hurt?

The test is intention, not the size of the wound. A minor injury with a clear intention to kill can fall under Section 109. A serious injury without murderous intention may only be grievous hurt under Section 117 or Section 118 BNS.

Section 109 or Section 110?

Section 109 applies if the death would have been murder. Section 110 applies if the death would only have been culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for example under grave and sudden provocation.

Can the parties compromise?

Not at the police station or in the trial court. Section 109 is not in the list of compoundable offences in Section 359 BNSS. Only the High Court, under its inherent powers in Section 528 BNSS, may quash in limited cases.

For the general public: what to do

• Victim side: Get medical treatment first and ask the hospital to record the injuries (a medico-legal report). Report to the police on 112. The offence is cognizable, so an FIR must be registered.
• Accused side: As the offence is non-bailable, bail is at the court’s discretion. Anticipatory bail can be sought under Section 482 BNSS; regular bail goes before the Sessions Court and then the High Court.
• Documents: FIR copy, medico-legal report, X-ray or CT reports, photographs, CCTV footage and witness details.

Exam angle

• Old 307 = new 109; old 308 = new 110. Expect direct matching questions.
• Injury is not necessary for the basic offence (Balram Bama Patil).
• Life imprisonment is possible only when hurt is caused.
• Section 109(2): life convict plus hurt, punishment may extend to death.
• Non-compoundable, but High Court quashing on settlement is possible (Narinder Singh).

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 307 IPC?

Section 307 IPC is now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Is Section 109 BNS bailable?

No. It is non-bailable and cognizable, and is tried by a Court of Session.

What is the punishment for attempt to murder under BNS?

Up to ten years and fine. If hurt is caused, it can be life imprisonment. A life convict who causes hurt may get death.

Is injury necessary for Section 109 BNS?

No. The offence is complete if the act is done with murderous intention or knowledge, even if no injury results.

Can a 307 or 109 case be compromised?

It is not compoundable. A settlement can only be placed before the High Court, which may quash the case in limited situations.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 109 and 110 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: First Schedule and Section 359
• State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28
• Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 304B IPC is now Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Dowry death is punishable with imprisonment of not less than seven years, which may extend to life. The presumption that the husband or his relative caused the death, earlier in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, is now in Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 80 BNS says

Section 80(1) treats a woman’s death as a dowry death when four conditions are met. If they are, the husband or the relative who harassed her is deemed to have caused her death. Section 80(2) prescribes the punishment.

The four ingredients

1. The death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury, or occurred “otherwise than under normal circumstances”.
2. The death occurred within seven years of her marriage.
3. Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband.
4. The cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry.

“Dowry” has the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage, before, at or after it.

The phrase “otherwise than under normal circumstances” is important. It covers suicide and unexplained deaths too, not only burns or injuries. This is why many dowry death cases begin as suspected suicides.

The presumption under Section 118 BSA

Section 118 BSA provides that once it is shown that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, the court “shall presume” that the person who did so caused the dowry death. This is a mandatory presumption, not a discretionary one.

The presumption works only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts: a dowry death of the kind described, within seven years of marriage, and dowry-linked cruelty soon before death. After that, the burden shifts to the accused to show, for example, that the death was natural or accidental, or that there was no dowry demand. The presumption is rebuttable.

What changed from Section 304B IPC

• Number change: Section 304B IPC became Section 80 BNS. The ingredients and punishment (7 years minimum, life maximum) are unchanged.
• Evidence rule: Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act became Section 118 BSA, with the same mandatory presumption.
• Related offences: Cruelty by husband or relatives (old Section 498A IPC) is now Section 85 BNS, with its definition of cruelty in Section 86. Abetment of suicide (old Section 306 IPC) is now Section 108 BNS.

Deaths before 1 July 2024 continue to be tried under Section 304B IPC.

Important case law

• Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that “soon before” cannot be read as “immediately before”. There is no fixed period; the prosecution must show a “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the death. The Court also cautioned trial courts to examine the accused properly under the statement-of-accused provision so that the presumption can be fairly rebutted.
• Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207: “Soon before” is a relative term. Harassment that is remote in time and has become stale will not attract the provision; the cruelty must be connected to the death.
• Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 1359: A three-judge bench confirmed that “soon before” is a relative term. The real question is whether the dowry demand had become stale or remained the continuing cause of the death.

Common confusions

• Section 80 vs Section 103: If there is evidence that the husband intentionally killed the woman, the charge may be murder under Section 103 BNS, often with Section 80 in the alternative.
• Section 80 vs Section 85: Section 85 punishes cruelty itself, even if the woman is alive. Section 80 applies only when she has died within seven years of marriage.
• After seven years: Section 80 does not apply, but murder, abetment of suicide or cruelty charges can still be brought.
• Who can be accused: The section names only the husband and relatives of the husband. Neighbours or friends cannot be charged under Section 80 itself, though they may face other charges such as abetment.

For the general public: what to do

• Report immediately: Call 112 or go to the nearest police station. Dowry death is cognizable, so an FIR must be registered.
• Post-mortem: Under Section 194(3) BNSS, police must send the body for post-mortem where a woman dies within seven years of marriage by suicide or in suspicious circumstances, or where her relative asks for it. Make that request in writing.
• Evidence to collect: Marriage proof (photographs, invitation card, certificate), messages or letters about dowry demands, earlier complaints to police, panchayat or women’s helpline, bank transfers to the husband’s family, and names of people she confided in.
• Bail: Non-bailable; the Sessions Court or High Court decides bail. Anticipatory bail can be sought under Section 482 BNSS, but courts weigh the seriousness of the charge and the statutory presumption.

Exam angle

• 304B IPC = 80 BNS; 113B IEA = 118 BSA; 498A IPC = 85 BNS.
• Minimum 7 years, maximum life. Death penalty is not prescribed.
• Seven years of marriage is a hard condition.
• Satbir Singh (2021): “soon before” is not “immediately before”; proximate and live link.
• Section 118 BSA is a “shall presume” (mandatory but rebuttable) presumption.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 304B IPC?

Section 304B IPC is now Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

What is the punishment for dowry death under BNS?

Imprisonment of not less than seven years, which may extend to life imprisonment.

Is Section 80 BNS bailable?

No. It is cognizable and non-bailable, and is tried by a Court of Session.

Which section of BSA deals with presumption of dowry death?

Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Does dowry death apply if the woman died by suicide?

Yes, if the other conditions are met. Suicide is a death “otherwise than under normal circumstances”.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 80, 85 and 86 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Section 118
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 194 and First Schedule
• Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1
• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Section 2

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 304A IPC is now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 106(1) punishes causing death by a rash or negligent act with up to five years and fine (up to two years for a registered doctor during a medical procedure). Section 106(2), the hit-and-run clause with up to ten years, has not been brought into force and was kept out of the 1 July 2024 commencement.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 106 BNS says

Section 106(1): death by negligence

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing a rash or negligent act “not amounting to culpable homicide” is punishable with imprisonment up to five years and fine. The key ingredients are:

• the death of a person;
• caused by the act of the accused, which must be the direct and proximate cause;
• the act was rash or negligent; and
• there was no intention or knowledge of the kind needed for culpable homicide.

Rash means acting with awareness of the risk but hoping it will not happen. Negligent means failing to take the care a reasonable person would take. Both are lower mental states than the intention or knowledge needed for Section 105 BNS.

The doctor clause

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 means one holding a qualification recognised under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and enrolled in the National or a State Medical Register.

Section 106(2): hit and run

This clause covers a driver who causes death by rash and negligent driving and escapes without reporting the incident to a police officer or Magistrate soon after it. The punishment is up to ten years and fine. The higher punishment is for running away and not reporting, not for the accident alone.

What changed from Section 304A IPC

• Higher maximum: Section 304A carried up to two years. Section 106(1) raises this to five years.
• Separate doctor clause: Registered doctors keep the old two-year maximum when death occurs during a medical procedure.
• New hit-and-run offence: Section 106(2) is new, but it has not been notified.

Is Section 106(2) in force?

No. When the BNS was brought into force from 1 July 2024, the Central Government’s notification excluded Section 106(2). The clause triggered protests by truck drivers and transporters in January 2024, after which the government said it would invoke the provision only after consulting the All India Motor Transport Congress.

In July 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest petition connected to the non-notification of Section 106(2). It noted that under Section 1(2) BNS, provisions come into force on the dates the Central Government notifies, and that the court could not compel enforcement. So, as of October 2026, a hit-and-run death is prosecuted under Section 106(1), and failure to report is dealt with separately under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Important case law

• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1: For criminal liability, a doctor’s negligence must be gross or reckless, not a mere error of judgment. A private complaint against a doctor should be backed by a credible opinion of another competent doctor, and doctors should not be arrested as a matter of routine.
• Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648: A drunk driver who ran over pavement dwellers was held liable under Section 304 Part II IPC, as he had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. Rash driving with such knowledge can go beyond Section 304A.

Common confusions

• Section 106 vs Section 105: If the driver or actor had knowledge that death was likely (for example, very drunk driving into a crowd), the charge may be Section 105 BNS. Section 106 is for cases without such knowledge.
• Section 106 vs Section 281 BNS: Section 281 (old Section 279 IPC) punishes rash driving on a public way that endangers life, even if no one dies. Both are often charged together.
• Hit and run is not automatically ten years: Because Section 106(2) is not in force, the ten-year punishment cannot be applied today.

For the general public: what to do

• If you are the driver: Stop, help the injured get medical aid, and report to the nearest police station. Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act already requires this.
• Victim’s family: File an FIR. Ask for copies of the FIR, post-mortem report and site plan. Claim compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
• Unknown vehicle: Under the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, compensation is Rs 2 lakh for death and Rs 50,000 for grievous hurt. Apply through the claims enquiry officer in your district (usually the SDM) with the FIR and post-mortem or medical report.
• Medical negligence: Before filing a criminal complaint, obtain treatment records and, where possible, an expert medical opinion, as required by Jacob Mathew. A consumer complaint for compensation is a separate remedy.

Exam angle

• 304A = 106; maximum raised from 2 to 5 years.
• Doctor clause: up to 2 years, only for a registered medical practitioner during a medical procedure.
• 106(2): up to 10 years, non-bailable, not in force.
• Jacob Mathew: gross negligence standard for doctors.
• Section 106(1) is bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 304A IPC?

Section 304A IPC is now Section 106(1) of the BNS, with a maximum of five years and fine.

Is the new hit-and-run law in force?

No. Section 106(2) BNS was excluded from the July 2024 commencement and, as of October 2026, has not been notified.

Is Section 106 BNS bailable?

Section 106(1) is bailable. Section 106(2) would be non-bailable once it comes into force.

What is the punishment for a doctor under Section 106?

Up to two years and fine, if the death occurs during a medical procedure by a registered medical practitioner.

How much compensation is paid in a hit-and-run death?

Under the 2022 scheme, Rs 2 lakh for death and Rs 50,000 for grievous hurt where the vehicle cannot be traced.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 1(2), 105 and 106 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: First Schedule
• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
• Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways)
• LiveLaw report on Delhi High Court dismissal of PIL on Section 106(2) BNS, July 2026

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.