IPC 353 in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

This section protects public servants from assault or criminal force while carrying out their duties. Under the BNS it sits at Section 132 — and the number matters, because Section 121 covers a different and more serious offence that is frequently confused with it.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the person assaulted or against whom criminal force was used was a public servant
• they were acting in the execution of their duty, or the act was done with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging that duty
• the accused assaulted them or used criminal force against them

What changed from the IPC

The offence and the punishment are carried over from IPC 353 without substantive change: imprisonment of either description which may extend to two years, or a fine, or both. The renumbering is where the difficulty lies. IPC 353 became BNS 132. It is often incorrectly cited as BNS 121, but Section 121 is a separate provision covering voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant, which replaced IPC 332 and 333 — and that section did change, raising the punishment for causing hurt from three years under IPC 332 to five years under BNS 121, with a mandatory minimum of one year and a maximum of ten where grievous hurt is caused.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The line between Section 132 and Section 121 is the difference between assault or criminal force on the one hand and actually causing hurt on the other, and it carries a very large difference in punishment — two years against five, or ten where grievous hurt results. Assault under the general definition includes a gesture or preparation causing apprehension of criminal force, so no contact at all is required for Section 132; once hurt is caused, Section 121 applies instead. Section 195 covers assaulting or obstructing a public servant when suppressing a riot. Where the conduct amounted only to obstruction without any assault or force, the appropriate provision is the one dealing with obstructing a public servant, not this section.

How the case proceeds

The offence is cognizable and, with a two-year maximum, is tried by a magistrate. Two questions frame every case: whether the complainant was a public servant within the statutory meaning, and whether they were acting in the execution of their duty at the relevant time. The second is contested more often than the first, because an act done outside the lawful scope of duty does not attract the protection the section gives.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

The case rests on establishing the status of the complainant, the duty being performed and the act alleged. Documents authorising the action being carried out — the warrant, the inspection order, the deployment record, the duty roster — establish whether the officer was acting in execution of duty, and their absence is a recognised line of defence. Where the incident occurred during an enforcement action or a public gathering, video from official cameras, bystanders and news coverage is the most objective evidence and frequently decides the case. Medical evidence matters because it determines whether the charge properly falls under Section 132 or under Section 121. Where several people are named from a crowd, identification carries the same weaknesses as in any crowd prosecution.

How courts approach sentencing

Imprisonment of either description which may extend to two years, or a fine, or both. Where hurt was actually caused, the applicable provision is Section 121, carrying up to five years, and where grievous hurt was caused, a minimum of one year extending to ten.

Defences that commonly apply

The most effective defence is usually that the public servant was not acting in the execution of duty, or was acting beyond the authority conferred on them, which removes the protection the section provides and may leave the right of private defence available. Disputing the assault itself is the alternative, and video evidence generally settles it. Where the charge has been laid under Section 121 but the medical evidence discloses no hurt, or no grievous hurt, moving the case to the correct provision materially reduces exposure. Where the accused was one of many named following a crowd incident, the reliability of identification is the central issue.

How a case under this section typically progresses

As a magistrate's case this is a relatively short process, though it is very often charged alongside public-order offences arising from the same incident, in which case the timeline follows those. Where the incident arose during an enforcement action or a protest, parallel proceedings — departmental, or by way of a complaint against the officers — frequently run alongside and the two sets of proceedings tend to influence each other.

Documents worth gathering early

Obtain the documents establishing what the public servant was authorised to do at the time: the warrant, order, notice, inspection authority or deployment record. Collect all video from the incident, including official recordings, bystander footage and news coverage, and request CCTV in writing immediately. Obtain the medical records for everyone injured on either side, since they determine whether the correct provision is Section 132 or Section 121. Where the incident arose from an enforcement action, keep the papers relating to the underlying matter, since the lawfulness of the action being resisted is frequently the central question.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

Establish first which section has actually been invoked, since 132 and 121 are routinely confused and the difference is substantial. On the substance, the most productive question is whether the public servant was acting in the execution of duty — an officer acting beyond their lawful authority, or in a private capacity, is not protected by the section, and the right of private defence remains available against an act that is not done under colour of lawful authority. Where the incident occurred during an enforcement action, a protest or an inspection, the record of what the officer was authorised to do is directly relevant.

Common misunderstandings

"IPC 353 is now BNS 121."
It is BNS 132. Section 121 covers voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant and replaced IPC 332 and 333, carrying up to five years or ten where grievous hurt results.

"Physical contact is necessary."
It is not. Assault includes a gesture or preparation causing apprehension of criminal force, so the offence can be complete without contact.

"Any confrontation with an official is covered."
The public servant must have been acting in the execution of their duty, or the act must have been intended to deter them from it. Conduct outside the lawful scope of duty is not protected.

"The punishment increased under the BNS."
For this offence it did not — two years, as under IPC 353. The provision that did increase is Section 121, where causing hurt to a public servant rose from three years to five.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 132 — Assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty
• BNS 121 — Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant (IPC 332, 333)
• BNS 195 — Assaulting or obstructing a public servant when suppressing a riot
• BNS 131 — Assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.