Section 354 IPC to Section 74 BNS: Outraging Modesty Explained (2026)

In India, assault or criminal force on a woman intending to outrage her modesty is punished under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) from 1 July 2024. The operative words and the punishment (one to five years, and fine) are unchanged. Only the heading gains "use of".

At a glance

Old section	New section	Offence in one line	Punishment	Cognizable / bailable / triable by	Change type
IPC s.354	BNS s.74	Assault or criminal force on any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it likely to outrage her modesty	Imprisonment of either description not less than 1 year, which may extend to 5 years, and liable to fine	Cognizable; non-bailable; any Magistrate (BNSS First Schedule entry 74; CrPC entry 354)	Minor edit

What changed

Identical — the offence. "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty" is the same in both.
Identical — the punishment. "imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine". In the IPC this was substituted by Act 13 of 2013, s.6, w.e.f. 3 February 2013. It replaced "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both". The BNS carries forward the post-2013 punishment.
Minor edit — the heading. IPC: "Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty". BNS: "Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty".
Minor edit — placement. BNS s.74 opens the sub-heading "Of criminal force and assault against woman" in Chapter V ("Of offences against woman and child"). That group runs from s.74 to s.79 and covers sexual harassment, disrobing, voyeurism, stalking and insulting modesty. In the IPC, s.354 sat with the general assault provisions.
Identical — the building blocks. "Force", "criminal force" and "assault" are defined in BNS ss.128, 129 and 130, carried over from IPC ss.349, 350 and 351. "Woman" means "a female human being of any age" (BNS s.2(35); IPC s.10 used the same words).
Omitted — a State proviso. The official IPC text records a Chhattisgarh amendment (Chhattisgarh Act 25 of 2015, s.3). It added a proviso to s.354 raising the punishment to not less than two years and up to seven years where the offender is "a relative, guardian or teacher or a person in a position of trust or authority". The Gazette text of BNS s.74 has no proviso. Whether Chhattisgarh has since amended BNS s.74 is not recorded in the texts read for this page.
Identical — classification. Cognizable, non-bailable, triable by any Magistrate, and not compoundable, under both regimes.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract — Section 74, BNS (the operative words of IPC s.354, as amended in 2013, are the same):

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Extract — Section 129, BNS (criminal force), opening words: "Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other."

Extract — Section 130, BNS (assault), opening words: "Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault."

How it works — the ingredients

Section 74 needs three things, each traceable to its words:

An assault or the use of criminal force (s.74, read with ss.129–130). Criminal force means intentionally using force on a person without consent, to commit an offence or intending or knowing it likely to cause injury, fear or annoyance (s.129). Assault is a gesture or preparation that makes a person present apprehend criminal force (s.130). Under the Explanation to s.130, "Mere words do not amount to an assault". Words alone, aimed at a woman's modesty, fall under s.79 instead.
On a woman (s.74). By s.2(35), that includes a female of any age.
With intention to outrage her modesty, or knowledge that it is likely to be outraged (s.74). Either state of mind is enough.

Worked examples from the Act's illustrations. Section 74 has no illustrations of its own, but those to s.129 show what "criminal force" covers. "A intentionally pushes against Z in the street" (illustration (d)). A has used force, and criminal force if it was without consent and intended or known likely to "injure, frighten or annoy Z". Illustration (e) extends this to force through objects that touch "Z's clothes". Force applied to what a woman is wearing is therefore capable of meeting the first ingredient. The Explanation and illustration (a) to s.130 show that shaking a fist is an assault, while mere words are not.

Where s.74 meets its neighbours. Section 75(1)(i) makes "physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures" sexual harassment, which is up to three years' rigorous imprisonment, or fine, or both. Section 76 covers force with intent to disrobe, at three to seven years. Section 79 covers words, sounds, gestures or objects intended to insult modesty, and intrusion on privacy. On a reading of the text, the same conduct may engage more than one of these sections, and the charge should follow the intention the facts disclose.

What this means in practice

For the woman reporting the offence. Her information about an offence under s.74 must be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer (BNSS s.173(1), first proviso). She is entitled to a free copy of the FIR (s.173(2)). If she is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the information is recorded at her residence or a place of her choice, with an interpreter or special educator present, and the recording is videographed (s.173(1), second proviso). Her statement during investigation is recorded by a woman officer (s.180(3), second proviso).
For the investigating officer. The offence is cognizable, so the officer investigates without a Magistrate's order. The officer must also arrange for a Magistrate to record her statement "as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police". This is done by a woman Magistrate as far as practicable (BNSS s.183(6)(a)). CrPC s.164(5A)(a) had the same recording rule for s.354 but no woman-Magistrate proviso.
For a complaint against a public servant. No sanction is needed where a public servant is accused of an offence under s.74 (BNSS s.218(1), third proviso).
For the accused. The offence is non-bailable, so bail is at the court's discretion. It is triable by any Magistrate and cannot be compounded: s.74 is not in the BNSS s.359 table, and s.359(9) bars compounding otherwise. Aparna Bhat forbids bail conditions that require or permit contact between the accused and the woman. The "slight harm" exception in BNS s.33 (formerly IPC s.95) was held inapplicable to such allegations in Rupan Deol Bajaj.
For advocates in Chhattisgarh. For offences before 1 July 2024, the State proviso to IPC s.354 set a higher range where the accused was in a position of trust or authority. For later offences, check whether any State amendment to BNS s.74 has been enacted before relying on the Gazette text alone.

Judgments that still matter

The operative words of BNS s.74 repeat IPC s.354, and "woman", "criminal force" and "assault" carry the same definitions. On a reading of the text, judgments construing those words therefore remain relevant. None of the judgments below construes BNS s.74.

State of Punjab v. Major Singh, [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 286 (1966 INSC 115), decided 28 April 1966. The accused had caused injury to the private parts of a seven-and-a-half-month-old girl. Sarkar C.J. dissented. The majority (Mudholkar J. and Bachawat J.) altered the conviction to s.354. Mudholkar J. held that "when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that act must fall within the mischief of this section". He rejected a test based on the woman's own reaction. Bachawat J. held that "the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex". A female possesses modesty from birth, and the culpable intention of the accused is the crux. Why it matters now: BNS s.2(35) keeps "female human being of any age", so the holding that a girl of any age is protected reads directly onto s.74.

Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 237 (1995 INSC 616), decided 12 October 1995. M.K. Mukherjee J., for a bench with A.S. Anand J., considered an FIR by a senior IAS officer against the Director General of Police, Punjab. It alleged that at a dinner party he slapped her on the posterior. Drawing on Major Singh, the Court held that the test is whether the act "could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman". The alleged slap met it, "'sexual overtones' or not, notwithstanding". Intention can be inferred from the sequence of events. On those allegations, it held the harm could not be treated as so slight as to attract the s.95 IPC "slight harm" exception. It directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance under ss.354 and 509 IPC. This was a prima facie ruling that sent the case to trial, not a conviction. Why it matters now: BNS s.74 and s.33 repeat the words construed.

Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 287 (2004 INSC 98), decided 11 February 2004. Arijit Pasayat J., for a bench with Doraiswamy Raju J., set out three ingredients of s.354: the assault must be on a woman, criminal force must be used on her, and it must be used intending to outrage her modesty. "The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive." Knowledge that modesty is likely to be outraged suffices without a deliberate intention to outrage. The Court also said the "common notions of mankind" test in Major Singh has "to be gauged by contemporary societal standards". It dismissed the appeal against the s.354 conviction. Why it matters now: this three-part checklist maps word for word onto BNS s.74.

Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2021] 4 S.C.R. 479 (2021 INSC 192), decided 18 March 2021. The case arose from anticipatory bail on an FIR under ss.452, 354A, 323 and 506 IPC. The High Court had ordered the accused to have the complainant tie a rakhi on him. S. Ravindra Bhat J., for a bench with A.M. Khanwilkar J., set that condition aside (para 51). "The law criminalizes outraging the modesty of a woman" (para 33). The Court directed that "Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim" (para 44(a)). It also directed that the complainant be told immediately when bail is granted and receive a copy of the order within two days (para 44(c)). Courts are not to suggest compromise or mediation between the accused and the survivor (para 44(e)). Why it matters now: the directions govern bail in sexual offences generally and apply to s.74 bail hearings.

Which law applies to your case

BNS s.358(2) provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect any penalty or punishment incurred under it. Proceedings may be "instituted, continued or enforced" as if the IPC "had not been repealed". On a reading of that text, an offence committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under IPC s.354, including any State amendment then in force. An offence on or after that date is charged under BNS s.74. BNSS s.531(2)(a) keeps any trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 under the CrPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force when the offence was committed. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 354 IPC? Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for offences committed on or after 1 July 2024. Its operative words are the same: assault or criminal force on any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it likely to outrage her modesty. The punishment is also the same: not less than one year, up to five years, and liability to fine. Only the heading changes, adding the words use of.

What is the punishment under Section 74 BNS, and is it bailable? Section 74 BNS carries imprisonment of either description for not less than one year, which may extend to five years, and the offender is also liable to fine. The BNSS First Schedule lists it as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by any Magistrate. This matches the CrPC First Schedule entry for Section 354 IPC as substituted in 2013.

What does modesty mean under Section 74 BNS? Neither the IPC nor the BNS defines modesty. In State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1966 INSC 115), the majority held that an act clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind falls within the section, and that a female of any age has modesty. In Rupan Deol Bajaj (1995 INSC 616) the Supreme Court put the test as whether the act is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.

Does the woman have to feel outraged for the offence to be made out? No. Section 74 BNS turns on what the accused intended or knew, not on the woman's reaction. In Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2004 INSC 98), the Supreme Court held that the culpable intention of the accused is the crux, and that the woman's reaction is very relevant but its absence is not always decisive. In Major Singh (1966), a conviction was recorded where the victim was a seven-and-a-half-month-old child.

Can a Section 74 BNS case be settled by compromise? No. Section 74 BNS is not in the compounding table of Section 359 BNSS, and Section 359(9) bars compounding any offence not provided for there. Section 354 IPC was likewise not in the Section 320 CrPC table. By contrast, Section 79 BNS (insulting the modesty of a woman) is compoundable by the woman, with the Court's permission (Section 359(2)).

Who records the woman's complaint and statement under the BNSS? Section 173(1) BNSS requires information about an offence under Section 74 BNS given by the woman to be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer, and a copy must be given free of cost under Section 173(2). Section 180(3) requires her statement during investigation to be recorded by a woman officer. Section 183(6)(a) requires a Magistrate to record her statement as soon as the offence is brought to police notice, by a woman Magistrate as far as practicable.

Is sanction needed to prosecute a public servant under Section 74 BNS? No. The third proviso to Section 218(1) BNSS provides that no sanction is required where a public servant is accused of an offence under Section 74 BNS, among other listed sections. In Rupan Deol Bajaj (1995 INSC 616) the accused was the Director General of Police, Punjab, and the Supreme Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC.

Which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves liabilities and punishments incurred under the repealed IPC and lets proceedings continue as if the IPC had not been repealed, so an offence committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 354 IPC. Section 531(2)(a) BNSS keeps trials and investigations pending on that date under the CrPC. The punishment is the same under both sections.

Sources

Acts and sections read (BNS and BNSS from the Gazette; IPC and CrPC from the official texts): BNS ss.2(35), 33, 74–79, 128–130, 358; IPC ss.10, 95, 349–351, 354 (with its footnote and the Chhattisgarh amendment); BNSS ss.173(1)–(2), 180(3), 183(6)(a), 218(1), 359, 531(2)(a) and First Schedule entry 74; CrPC ss.164(5A)(a), 320 and First Schedule entry 354; Constitution, Art. 20(1).

Judgments read (full text, Veritect Supreme Court corpus): State of Punjab v. Major Singh (S_1966_1_286_295_EN.md); Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (S_1995_4_237_260_EN.md); Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2004_2_287_296_EN.md); Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021_4_479_510_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Section 354 IPC vs Section 74 BNS — Assault on Woman to Outrage Modesty