IPC 372-373 vs BNS 98-99: Selling and Buying Minors Changes (2026)

In India, Sections 98 and 99 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Sections 372 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. Both now protect a "child" (below eighteen); selling keeps its ten-year maximum, while buying a child now carries seven to fourteen years, against up to ten years under Section 373 IPC.

At a glance

IPC	BNS	Offence	Punishment (BNS text)	Classification (BNSS First Schedule)	Change
372	98	Selling, letting to hire or otherwise disposing of a child for prostitution, illicit intercourse or any unlawful and immoral purpose	Imprisonment of either description up to 10 years, and fine	Cognizable; non-bailable; Court of Session	Minor edit ("person under the age of eighteen years" → "child")
373	99	Buying, hiring or otherwise obtaining possession of a child for those purposes	Imprisonment of either description not less than 7 years and up to 14 years, and fine	Cognizable; non-bailable; Court of Session	Modified (minimum 7 years added; maximum 10 → 14 years)

The CrPC First Schedule listed Sections 372 and 373 IPC as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session (the "Ditto" entries trace to the Section 371 row), so the classification is unchanged. Only the punishment entry for buying changes: the CrPC row for Section 373 read "Imprisonment for 10 years and fine"; the BNSS row for Section 99 reads "Imprisonment for not less than 7 years but which may extend to 14 years and fine".

What changed

Modified — Section 99 BNS (IPC 373): the punishment "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine" becomes "imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine". The offence now carries a statutory minimum.
Minor edit — Sections 98 and 99 BNS (the protected person): "any person under the age of eighteen years" becomes "any child", and "such person" becomes "such child" (twice in each section). Section 2(3) BNS defines "child" as "any person below the age of eighteen years", so on a reading of the text the age limit is the same.
Minor edit — Explanations: "Explanation I" and "Explanation II" are renumbered "Explanation 1" and "Explanation 2". The Explanation 1 presumptions still speak of "a female under the age of eighteen years", not "child". Explanation 2 to Section 99 cross-refers to "section 98" instead of "section 372".
Identical — Section 98 punishment (IPC 372): up to ten years and fine.
Identical — the rest of the offence: "sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of" (Section 98) and "buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of" (Section 99), the purposes ("prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose"), the words "at any age", the alternative of knowledge of likelihood, and the definition of "illicit intercourse".

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 373 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of any person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Extract, Section 99 BNS:

Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of any child with intent that such child shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such child will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Extract, Explanation 1 to Section 98 BNS:

When a female under the age of eighteen years is sold, let for hire, or otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the person so disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have disposed of her with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution.

How it works — the ingredients

Sections 98 and 99 are mirror images: one punishes the person who parts with the child, the other the person who acquires the child.

1. The transaction

Section 98: the accused "sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of" a child.
Section 99: the accused "buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of" a child. The words "otherwise disposes of" and "otherwise obtains possession of" extend the offence beyond a sale for money.

2. The victim is a child — a person below eighteen (Section 2(3) BNS). Age is a fact the prosecution must prove.

3. The mental element (either)

intent that the child "shall at any age be employed or used" for prostitution, for illicit intercourse with any person, or for any unlawful and immoral purpose; or
knowledge that it is likely that the child "will at any age be" so employed or used. On a reading of the words "at any age", the intended use may lie after the child reaches eighteen; what must be below eighteen is the child's age at the time of the transaction.

4. Presumptions (Explanation 1) — where a female under eighteen is disposed of to a prostitute or brothel-keeper (Section 98), or bought, hired or obtained by a prostitute or brothel-keeper (Section 99), the intent that she be used for prostitution is presumed "until the contrary is proved". On a reading of the text, the presumption is limited to females and to the prostitution purpose; for a male child, or for "illicit intercourse" or "any unlawful and immoral purpose", intent or knowledge must be proved in the ordinary way.

5. "Illicit intercourse" (Explanation 2) — sexual intercourse between persons not united by marriage or by a union or tie recognised by their personal law or custom as a quasi-marital relation.

Neighbouring provisions — Section 96 BNS (procuration of child; formerly Section 366A IPC) covers inducing a child to go from any place or do any act with intent that the child may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Sections 143 and 144 BNS (formerly Sections 370 and 370A IPC) deal with trafficking of persons and exploitation of a trafficked person. Prosecutions of the kind described below have also been brought under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 alongside the Penal Code offences.

What this means in practice

For the investigating officer and prosecutor

Prove age with the best documentary evidence available. In Kirankumar the Supreme Court preferred the date of birth recorded by the school to an ossification test (para 14).
Where the buyer or recipient is a prostitute or brothel-keeper and the victim is a girl, plead and prove the facts that trigger Explanation 1 — the burden then shifts to the accused to prove the contrary.
Charge the correct section for the correct side of the transaction: Section 98 for the seller or person who disposes of the child, Section 99 for the buyer or person who obtains possession.

For the victim and the victim's family

Both offences are cognizable, so the police can register an FIR and investigate without a Magistrate's order.
The Supreme Court in Kirankumar held that a minor victim of sex trafficking is not an accomplice and that a conviction may rest on her sole testimony if it is credible (para 11(iv)).

For the accused and defence advocate

Both offences are non-bailable and triable only by the Court of Session, so bail is a matter for the court.
For Section 99, the minimum of seven years applies only to conduct on or after 1 July 2024 (see "Which law applies"). Under Section 373 IPC there was no minimum; in Manjappa the Supreme Court, having described the maximum as ten years (para 4), upheld a seven-year sentence as reasonable (para 6).
The Explanation 1 presumption is rebuttable. Outside it, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge of the likely use.

Judgments that still matter

Manjappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1095 (2010 INSC 583) — 8 September 2010. P. Sathasivam and Anil R. Dave JJ. (judgment by Sathasivam J.) dealt with a 13-year-old girl taken from her home to Bombay and sold for Rs. 5,000 for prostitution (para 2). The Sessions Judge had convicted two accused under Sections 366A, 372 and 373 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted the third; the High Court allowed the State's appeals, convicted the third accused and enhanced all three sentences to seven years with a fine of Rs. 50,000 each (para 2). The Supreme Court described the three sections together: each applies where the victim is under eighteen, and each prescribed a maximum of ten years and fine (para 4). Relying on the victim's evidence and a medical report showing she was below eighteen, it refused to reduce the sentence, held that a deterrent sentence was proper in such a case, and dismissed both appeals (paras 5-6). The ten-year maximum described in para 4 remains the maximum for Section 98 BNS; for buying, Section 99 BNS now fixes seven to fourteen years.

K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police, 2025 INSC 1473 — 19 December 2025. Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi JJ. (judgment by Bagchi J.) heard an appeal against convictions under Sections 366A, 373 and 34 IPC read with Sections 3 to 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (para 5), arising from a 2010 raid in which a minor was rescued from premises used for prostitution (para 3). The Court set out considerations for appreciating a minor trafficking victim's evidence — her vulnerability, the layered structure of trafficking networks, and secondary victimisation — and held that she "is not an accomplice" and that a conviction may be maintained on her sole testimony if credible (para 11). It accepted a school headmaster's certificate of date of birth, holding that age determined by ossification test "is a mere approximation" (para 14), found that the search requirements of Section 15(2) of the 1956 Act were substantially complied with (para 18), and upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal (para 19). The case applied the IPC; its approach to age and to the victim's evidence bears on the same questions under Sections 98 and 99 BNS.

No Supreme Court judgment applying Section 98 or 99 BNS was located and read for this page.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS keeps alive any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to continue "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that provision, selling or buying a minor before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 372 or 373 IPC. Investigations and trials pending on that date continue under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force when the offence was committed, so, on a reading of that Article, the seven-year minimum and fourteen-year maximum in Section 99 cannot be applied to earlier conduct. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What are the BNS equivalents of Sections 372 and 373 IPC? Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 372 IPC (selling a minor for purposes of prostitution), and Section 99 BNS replaces Section 373 IPC (buying a minor for those purposes). Both BNS sections use the word "child", which Section 2(3) BNS defines as any person below the age of eighteen years.

Has the punishment for buying a child for prostitution changed under the BNS? Yes. Section 373 IPC allowed imprisonment of either description up to ten years and fine. Section 99 BNS prescribes imprisonment of either description for not less than seven years and up to fourteen years, and fine. The punishment for selling a child under Section 98 BNS stays at up to ten years and fine.

Are Sections 98 and 99 BNS bailable? No. The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists both as cognizable and non-bailable, triable by the Court of Session. The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 372 and 373 IPC the same way.

Does the offence require that the child was actually used for prostitution? No. Sections 98 and 99 BNS are complete when a child is sold, let to hire, bought, hired or otherwise disposed of or obtained with intent that the child shall at any age be employed or used for prostitution, illicit intercourse or any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing that this is likely. On a reading of the words "at any age", the intended use may be after the child turns eighteen.

What presumption applies when a girl is sold to or bought by a brothel? Explanation 1 to Section 98 BNS presumes, until the contrary is proved, that a person who disposes of a female under eighteen to a prostitute or a brothel-keeper intended her to be used for prostitution. Explanation 1 to Section 99 BNS presumes the same intent when a prostitute or brothel-keeper buys, hires or obtains possession of such a female. Both Explanations were in Sections 372 and 373 IPC.

How is the victim's age proved in these cases? In K.P. Kirankumar v. State (2025 INSC 1473), a case under Sections 366A and 373 IPC, the Supreme Court accepted a school headmaster's certificate of the date of birth and rejected the argument that an ossification test was required, observing that an ossification test is a mere approximation (para 14). The Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

Which law applies to selling or buying a minor before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings continue as if it had not been repealed, so on a reading of that text conduct before 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 372 or 373 IPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a heavier penalty than the law then in force, so, on a reading of that Article, the seven-year minimum and fourteen-year maximum in Section 99 BNS cannot be imposed for earlier conduct.

Sources

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 2(3), 96 to 99, 143, 144 and 358.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 372 and 373, with the footnotes recording the 1924 amendments.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Section 531 and the First Schedule entries for Sections 98 and 99 BNS.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: First Schedule entries for Sections 372 and 373 IPC, with Ditto entries traced.
Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
Judgments read in full text: Manjappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2010_10_1095_1100_EN.md; citation confirmed from report PDF); K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police (Diary_24596-2025_Judgment.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.

Sections 372–373 IPC vs Sections 98–99 BNS — Selling and Buying a Child for Purposes of Prostitution