IPC 354 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 is the provision that covers assault on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, and under the BNS it sits at Section 74. It carries a minimum of one year, which distinguishes it from most offences at the lower end of the scale, and it sits at the head of a group of related provisions that the BNS keeps together in sequence.

What the section requires

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

• the accused assaulted or used criminal force against a woman
• the act was done with the intention of outraging her modesty, or with the knowledge that it was likely to outrage her modesty

What changed from the IPC

The offence and its punishment are carried over unchanged: a minimum of one year extending to five years, together with a fine. What did change is the arrangement. The BNS groups the offences against women that were scattered across the IPC into a single sequence: assault with intent to outrage modesty at Section 74, sexual harassment at 75, assault with intent to disrobe at 76, voyeurism at 77, stalking at 78, and words or gestures intended to insult modesty at 79. Reading the group together is now considerably easier than it was under the IPC, where these provisions had been inserted at different times and sat in different places.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The provisions in this group are frequently confused and are often charged together. Section 74 requires an assault or the use of criminal force, meaning physical contact or a gesture creating apprehension of it. Section 75 covers sexual harassment, including unwelcome physical advances, a demand for sexual favours, showing pornography against a woman's will or making sexually coloured remarks, and does not require force. Section 79 covers words, sounds or gestures intended to insult modesty, without any physical element at all. Section 76 applies where the assault is with the intention of disrobing the woman or compelling her to be naked, and carries a substantially higher punishment. Which section applies turns on whether there was physical force, and on what the act was intended to achieve.

How the case proceeds

The offence is cognizable and non-bailable and is tried by a magistrate. Because it carries a minimum sentence, a conviction cannot result in a purely nominal punishment. The statement of the complainant is central, and provisions on how and by whom a woman's statement is recorded, and on in-camera proceedings, apply in this group of offences.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

The complainant's account is the principal evidence and its consistency across the first complaint, the statement to police and the testimony at trial is examined closely. Independent witnesses matter a great deal where they exist, particularly those unconnected to either party. Where the incident occurred in a workplace, an educational institution or a commercial premises, internal complaints, CCTV and attendance records are often decisive on whether the parties were where they are said to have been. Messages and call records before and after the incident are used by both sides, either to corroborate the account or to show a relationship inconsistent with it. Where a prior dispute exists between the parties, evidence of it is invariably led by the defence.

How courts approach sentencing

The punishment is imprisonment of not less than one year, which may extend to five years, together with a fine. The mandatory minimum means the court cannot impose a fine alone or a nominal term, and sentencing within the range reflects the nature of the act, the relationship between the parties and any position of authority the accused held.

Defences that commonly apply

The most common defence is that the ingredients are not made out — that there was no assault or criminal force, or that the act was not done with the intention or knowledge of outraging modesty. Where a pre-existing dispute exists, particularly one in which the complaint followed an adverse development for the complainant, the argument that the allegation is a counterblast is routinely advanced and is supported by the sequence of events. Material contradicting the account of where the parties were, such as attendance records, travel records or CCTV, is the most objective evidence available. Inconsistencies between the first complaint and later statements are relied on, though courts approach minor discrepancies in this category with some latitude.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The matter begins with a complaint and an FIR, followed by the recording of the complainant's statement in accordance with the special provisions applicable to women. Investigation and a charge sheet follow, and trial is before a magistrate. Because the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, the question of bail arises early and is usually the first substantive hearing. The overall timeline depends on the number of witnesses and on whether related civil or service proceedings are running alongside.

Documents worth gathering early

Preserve messages, emails and call records covering the period before and after the incident in their original form on the original device. Where the incident is alleged to have occurred at a workplace or institution, obtain the attendance records, visitor logs and internal complaint papers, and request CCTV in writing immediately since it is usually overwritten within days. Note the names and contact details of anyone present who is unconnected to either party. Where there is a prior dispute — a service matter, a property disagreement, a complaint made by either side — keep those papers together with the criminal file, because the sequence in which events occurred 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

These cases turn almost entirely on the account of the incident, so the specifics matter more than in most: exactly what is alleged to have happened, where, when, and who else was present. Where the allegation arises out of a pre-existing dispute — a workplace grievance, a property matter, a neighbour quarrel — that context is directly relevant and the papers relating to it should be assembled. The promptness of the complaint is examined closely by courts on both sides of the case.

Common misunderstandings

"Physical contact is always required."
For Section 74 an assault or the use of criminal force is required, but assault includes a gesture or preparation causing apprehension of force. Where there is no physical element at all, Sections 75 or 79 may apply instead.

"The offence carries no minimum sentence."
It does. The punishment is not less than one year, extending to five years, together with a fine.

"The provisions on offences against women are unchanged in location."
The offences themselves are largely unchanged, but the BNS gathered them into a single sequence from 74 to 79, where the IPC had them scattered.

"A delayed complaint means the allegation is false."
Delay is a factor courts consider, but it is not treated as decisive in this category, since there are well-recognised reasons why complaints of this kind are not made immediately.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 74 — Assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage modesty
• BNS 75 — Sexual harassment (IPC 354A)
• BNS 76 — Assault with intent to disrobe (IPC 354B)
• BNS 79 — Word or gesture intended to insult modesty (IPC 509)

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.