IPC 354B 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 provision covers assault with the specific intention of disrobing a woman or compelling her to be naked. It carries a mandatory minimum of three years, which makes it substantially more serious than the general provision on outraging modesty that precedes it. Under the BNS it sits at Section 76.

What the section requires

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

• the accused was a man
• he assaulted or used criminal force against a woman, or abetted such an act
• the act was done with the intention of disrobing her or compelling her to be naked

What changed from the IPC

The offence and the punishment are carried over from IPC 354B without substantive change: imprisonment of not less than three years, which may extend to seven years, together with a fine. Like the rest of this group the provision was introduced by the 2013 amendments following the Justice Verma Committee, and the BNS retains it while placing it within the consolidated sequence of offences against women running from Section 74 to Section 79.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The specific intention is what separates this section from its neighbours. Section 74 covers assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty generally and carries one to five years; Section 76 applies where the intention was specifically to disrobe or to compel nakedness, and the minimum rises to three years with a maximum of seven. Where the act was recorded or the image disseminated, voyeurism under Section 77 is engaged in addition, and where images were circulated electronically the Information Technology Act provisions apply as well. Where the conduct went further, the offences relating to rape at Sections 63 and 64 are the applicable provisions, and the abetment limb of this section means that a person who encouraged or assisted the act is liable in the same way as the principal.

How the case proceeds

The offence is cognizable and non-bailable, and the three-year minimum means a conviction cannot result in a nominal sentence. The provisions on recording a woman's statement and on in-camera proceedings apply. Where the incident was recorded, the recovery and forensic examination of the device becomes a central part of the investigation, and the chain of custody of that device is scrutinised closely at trial.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

Where a recording exists it usually determines the case, and what matters technically is whether the original file is available on the original device with its metadata intact, since forwarded copies are routinely challenged and the certification requirements for electronic records are strict. Beyond recordings, the complainant's account and its consistency across the first complaint, the police statement and the testimony is central, as is the medical examination where any injury was caused. Independent witnesses matter, particularly where the incident occurred in a public or semi-public place. CCTV covering the location is valuable and disappears quickly. Where the incident arises from an existing dispute, the sequence of events is examined by both sides.

How courts approach sentencing

Imprisonment of not less than three years, which may extend to seven years, together with a fine. The three-year floor is mandatory. Sentencing within the range reflects whether the act was recorded or disseminated, whether it occurred in public, and the degree of premeditation.

Defences that commonly apply

The principal defence is on intention: establishing that the specific intention to disrobe or compel nakedness is not made out reduces the offence to Section 74, with its lower minimum and lower maximum, and that reduction is frequently the realistic objective. Where a recording is relied on by the prosecution, challenging its integrity, its chain of custody or its certification is a recognised route. Where the parties are in an existing dispute and the complaint followed a development adverse to the complainant, the sequence is relied on. Objective material contradicting the account of where the parties were remains the strongest evidence available.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The case begins with a complaint and the recording of the complainant's statement under the applicable provisions, followed by investigation, which where a recording is alleged will include seizure and forensic examination of devices. A charge sheet follows and trial proceeds. Because the offence is non-bailable and carries a minimum, bail is contested early and often through successive applications. Where images are alleged to have been circulated, parallel proceedings under the Information Technology Act may run alongside.

Documents worth gathering early

Where any recording exists, preserve the original file on the original device rather than a forwarded copy, since metadata and certification are frequently decisive. Obtain the medical records where any injury was caused. Request CCTV covering the location in writing immediately. Note the names and contact details of independent witnesses. Where the incident arises from a pre-existing dispute — a tenancy matter, a workplace grievance, a family disagreement — keep those papers with the criminal file, because the sequence in which events occurred is commonly the central contested 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

The intention alleged is the whole case, since assault without that specific intention falls under the lighter provision at Section 74. Where recordings exist, they are usually decisive one way or the other, and their integrity — whether the original file with its metadata is available, or only a forwarded copy — becomes the central technical question. Because the offence is non-bailable and carries a minimum, it should not be approached as an ordinary assault matter.

Common misunderstandings

"There is no minimum sentence."
There is. The punishment is not less than three years, extending to seven, together with a fine.

"Only the person who committed the act is liable."
The section expressly covers abetment, so a person who encouraged or assisted the act is liable in the same manner.

"It is the same offence as outraging modesty."
It is not. Section 74 covers assault with intent to outrage modesty generally, carrying one to five years. Section 76 requires the specific intention to disrobe or compel nakedness and carries three to seven.

"Recording the act is covered by the same section."
Recording or disseminating an image engages voyeurism under Section 77 as a separate offence, and the Information Technology Act may apply as well.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 76 — Assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe
• BNS 74 — Assault with intent to outrage modesty (IPC 354)
• BNS 77 — Voyeurism (IPC 354C)
• 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.