TL;DR
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, consolidates sexual offences into a dedicated Chapter V titled "Of Offences Against Woman and Children." While the core definition of rape under Section 63 BNS largely reproduces Section 375 IPC, significant changes include raising the marital rape exception age from 15 to 18 years, introducing Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise of marriage) as a distinct new offence, expanding death penalty applicability for gang rape of all minors under 18, and strengthening identity protection for victims under Section 72. Punishments for voyeurism and stalking have been enhanced for repeat offenders.
Overview of Changes
| Old Section (IPC) | Provision | New Section (BNS) | Change Type | Brief Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 375 | Definition of rape | Section 63 | Retained with modification | Marital rape exception age raised from 15 to 18 |
| Section 376(1) | Punishment for rape | Section 64(1) | Retained | Minimum 10 years RI, may extend to life |
| Section 376(2) | Aggravated rape (by authority figures) | Section 64(2) | Retained with additions | Added more categories of authority figures |
| Section 376A | Rape causing death/PVS | Section 66 | Retained | Death or minimum 20 years RI |
| Section 376AB | Rape of woman under 12 | Section 65(1) | Retained | Minimum 20 years RI, may extend to death |
| Section 376B | Intercourse by husband during separation | Section 67 | Retained | Imprisonment 2-7 years |
| Section 376C | Intercourse by person in authority | Section 68 | Retained | Imprisonment 5-10 years |
| Section 376D | Gang rape | Section 70(1) | Retained | Minimum 20 years RI to life |
| Section 376DA | Gang rape of woman under 16 | Section 70(2) | Modified — age raised | Now covers gang rape of woman under 18 (was under 16) |
| Section 376DB | Gang rape of woman under 12 | Section 70(2) | Merged | Death or life imprisonment |
| — | Sexual intercourse by deceitful means | Section 69 | New | Up to 10 years imprisonment |
| Section 354 | Assault on woman to outrage modesty | Section 74 | Retained | 1-5 years imprisonment |
| Section 354A | Sexual harassment | Section 75 | Retained | Up to 3 years imprisonment |
| Section 354B | Assault with intent to disrobe | Section 76 | Retained | 3-7 years imprisonment |
| Section 354C | Voyeurism | Section 77 | Enhanced | Enhanced punishment for repeat offenders |
| Section 354D | Stalking | Section 78 | Enhanced | Enhanced punishment for repeat offenders |
| Section 228A | Disclosure of victim identity | Section 72 | Strengthened | Up to 2 years imprisonment |
Detailed Comparison
Definition of Rape (Section 375 IPC vs Section 63 BNS)
What the old law said: Section 375 IPC defined rape through seven categories of acts constituting sexual intercourse without consent, including penetration, manipulation of body parts, and application of mouth. Exception 2 provided that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15 years of age, was not rape (marital rape exception).
What the new law says: Section 63 BNS reproduces the seven-category definition substantially unchanged. However, Exception 2 now raises the age threshold for the marital rape exception from 15 to 18 years — sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 18 years of age, is not rape.
What specifically changed: The marital rape exception age increase from 15 to 18 gives legislative effect to the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in Independent Thought v. Union of India, where the Court read down the exception to protect wives between 15 and 18. The overall marital rape exception for wives above 18 remains unchanged and continues to be a subject of ongoing constitutional litigation.
Practical impact: The legislative codification settles the age threshold question but does not resolve the broader debate on marital rape. Practitioners should note that the full marital rape exception survives for wives aged 18 and above.
Punishment for Rape (Section 376 IPC vs Section 64 BNS)
What the old law said: Section 376(1) IPC prescribed rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years, which could extend to life imprisonment, and fine. Section 376(2) listed aggravated categories — rape by police officer, public servant, armed forces member, hospital management, relative/guardian, during communal violence, by person in position of dominance — with minimum 10 years RI extending to life imprisonment.
What the new law says: Section 64(1) BNS retains the minimum 10 years RI to life imprisonment framework. Section 64(2) expands the list of aggravated categories to include additional authority figures.
What specifically changed: Punishments remain substantively identical. The expansion of aggravated categories reflects modern institutional contexts.
Practical impact: Practitioners should verify whether their client's relationship with the victim falls within the expanded aggravated categories under Section 64(2) BNS.
Gang Rape (Section 376D/376DA/376DB IPC vs Section 70 BNS)
What the old law said: Section 376D IPC punished gang rape with minimum 20 years RI to life imprisonment. Section 376DA specifically addressed gang rape of a woman under 16 (life imprisonment meaning imprisonment for remainder of natural life). Section 376DB addressed gang rape of a woman under 12 (death or life imprisonment).
What the new law says: Section 70(1) BNS retains the punishment for gang rape at minimum 20 years RI to life imprisonment. Section 70(2) consolidates the minor-victim provisions — gang rape of a woman under 18 years now carries death or life imprisonment (imprisonment for remainder of natural life) and fine.
What specifically changed: The age threshold for the aggravated gang rape provision has been raised from 16 to 18, bringing all minor victims under the harshest punishment framework. Sections 376DA and 376DB have been merged into a single provision (Section 70(2)).
Practical impact: Any gang rape of a minor under 18 now attracts the death penalty or whole-life imprisonment. Defence counsel must note this significant escalation in sentencing exposure.
Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means (New — Section 69 BNS)
What the old law said: No specific provision existed. Cases of sexual intercourse obtained through false promises of marriage were prosecuted as rape under Section 375 IPC by arguing vitiated consent, with inconsistent judicial outcomes.
What the new law says: Section 69 BNS creates a distinct offence for sexual intercourse (not amounting to rape) obtained by deceitful means or false promise of marriage. The Explanation clarifies that "deceitful means" includes false promise of employment or promotion, and inducement or marrying after suppressing identity. Punishment is imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
What specifically changed: This is an entirely new provision that fills a gap in the old law. It creates a separate offence category below rape but above sexual harassment, addressing a pattern of cases that courts previously struggled to categorize.
Practical impact: This provision gives prosecutors an additional charge where consent was technically given but was obtained through deception. Defence counsel should note that the burden will be on the prosecution to prove the accused had no intention to fulfil the promise at the time it was made, not merely that the promise was subsequently broken.
Voyeurism (Section 354C IPC vs Section 77 BNS)
What the old law said: Section 354C IPC punished voyeurism — watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a private act — with 1-3 years imprisonment and fine on first conviction, and 3-7 years imprisonment and fine on subsequent conviction.
What the new law says: Section 77 BNS retains the two-tier punishment structure with identical sentences. The definition has been updated to explicitly cover digital voyeurism and electronic surveillance.
What specifically changed: The explicit inclusion of digital and electronic means modernizes the provision for the smartphone era. Punishment quantum remains unchanged.
Practical impact: Digital surveillance, hidden camera recordings, and AI-generated deepfakes may now fall more clearly within this provision's scope.
Stalking (Section 354D IPC vs Section 78 BNS)
What the old law said: Section 354D IPC defined stalking as following a woman, contacting or attempting to contact her despite clear disinterest, or monitoring her use of internet/email/electronic communication. Punishment was up to 3 years on first conviction and up to 5 years on subsequent conviction.
What the new law says: Section 78 BNS retains the definition and two-tier punishment structure. The definition has been broadened to explicitly encompass cyberstalking — including persistent electronic harassment through social media, messaging platforms, and other digital means.
What specifically changed: The broadened definition captures modern forms of harassment that were ambiguously covered under the old provision.
Practical impact: Cyberstalking cases can now be more directly prosecuted without relying on interpretation. Practitioners should note the overlap with provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Assault on Woman / Sexual Harassment (Sections 354/354A/354B IPC vs Sections 74/75/76 BNS)
What the old law said: Section 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage modesty: 1-5 years), Section 354A (sexual harassment including demand for sexual favours: up to 3 years), Section 354B (assault with intent to disrobe: 3-7 years).
What the new law says: Sections 74, 75, and 76 BNS reproduce these provisions with identical punishment structures. The language has been streamlined and references updated.
What specifically changed: No substantive changes to definitions or punishments. These provisions have been carried forward with modernized language.
Practical impact: Practitioners should update section citations in all pending matters and FIRs.
New Provisions with No Old Equivalent
| Section | Provision | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Section 69 | Sexual intercourse by deceitful means | Fills the gap between rape and no offence for consent obtained through deception or false marriage promises. Punishable up to 10 years. |
| Section 70(2) consolidated | Gang rape of any minor under 18 | Unified provision covering all minor victims (previously split at 12 and 16 age thresholds). Death or whole-life imprisonment. |
| Section 72 strengthened | Identity disclosure prohibition | Enhanced protection with clearer definitions and up to 2 years imprisonment. Explicitly covers digital and social media disclosure. |
Abolished Provisions
No sexual offence provisions have been entirely abolished. The following have been consolidated:
- Section 376DA IPC (gang rape of woman under 16) and Section 376DB IPC (gang rape of woman under 12) have been merged into a single provision under Section 70(2) BNS, with the age threshold uniformly set at 18 years.
Practical Checklist for Practitioners
- Update all FIR, chargesheet, and petition templates to cite BNS section numbers instead of IPC sections
- Note the raised marital rape exception age (15 to 18) under Section 63 BNS and advise clients accordingly
- For gang rape cases involving victims under 18, note the consolidated provision under Section 70(2) with death or whole-life imprisonment
- Consider Section 69 BNS as an alternative charge in cases involving consent obtained through deception or false promises
- Verify whether expanded aggravated categories under Section 64(2) apply to your client's case
- Note the overlap between Section 69 BNS (deceitful means) and rape charges — the prosecution must establish that consent was given but vitiated by deception
- Review all pending sexual offence matters for transitional applicability under the new section numbers
- For victim representation, leverage the strengthened identity protection under Section 72 BNS
Recent judicial developments (post-July 2024)
The following cases from the Veritect Legal Intelligence database illustrate how courts are interpreting sexual offence provisions in the new BNS/BNSS framework:
Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (24 November 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan | Result: FIR and chargesheet quashed
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC (repeated rape on same woman) where a prolonged consensual relationship turned acrimonious. The Court held that a break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot be given criminal colour, and expressed concern about the "disquieting tendency" of failed relationships being presented as rape. This case is directly relevant to Section 69 BNS (sexual intercourse by deceitful means), as the Court clarified that the prosecution must prove the accused had no intention to fulfil the promise at inception, not merely that the promise was subsequently broken.
Veritect reference: Diary_19350-2025_Judgment
Appellant v. State of Uttar Pradesh — Gang Rape of Minor (9 January 2026)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan | Result: Bail cancelled
In one of the first significant cases under BNS Section 65(1) (rape of woman under 12/under 18), the Supreme Court cancelled bail granted by the High Court in a gang rape of a minor case. The Court held that the submission regarding a "consensual relationship" is "wholly untenable in law" where allegations involve coercion, intimidation, and multiple perpetrators. Under the POCSO Act, consent of a minor is legally irrelevant. The Court emphasized that BNS Section 65(1) prescribes imprisonment for life meaning the remainder of natural life.
Veritect reference: Diary_26489-2025_Judgment
State of West Bengal — POCSO Adolescent Consent Landmark (20 August 2024)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Judges: Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan | Result: HC acquittal reversed, conviction restored
The Supreme Court restored a conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC after the Calcutta High Court had acquitted the accused, characterizing the offence as a "non-exploitative consensual romantic relationship." The Supreme Court strongly condemned the HC's reasoning, holding that Section 375 IPC "sixthly" (now Section 63 BNS) makes penetrative intercourse with a woman under 18 rape regardless of consent. The Court issued systemic directions for implementation of Section 19(6) POCSO Act across all States.
Veritect reference: 2024_8_575_614_EN
Ankit Raj v. State of NCT of Delhi (3 September 2025)
Court: Delhi High Court | Judge: Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma | Result: FIR under Section 376 IPC quashed
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 376 IPC, holding that the sexual relationship was consensual and a mere break of a relationship cannot be criminalized. This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's Samadhan ruling and is relevant for interpreting the scope of Section 69 BNS.
Veritect reference: DLHC010259412025_1_2025-09-03
Emerging patterns
Based on available post-July 2024 court orders:
Courts are actively policing the line between consent and deception: Both the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court are distinguishing genuine cases of rape by false promise from broken relationships, which directly informs how Section 69 BNS will be interpreted.
BNS Section 65(1) is being applied strictly for minor victims: The Supreme Court's bail cancellation in the UP gang rape case signals zero tolerance for granting bail in cases involving sexual offences against minors under the new BNS framework.
Consent of a minor remains absolutely irrelevant: The POCSO/BNS framework makes minor consent legally immaterial, and courts are firmly rejecting any attempt to characterize offences against minors as "romantic relationships."
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the definition of rape changed under BNS?
The core seven-category definition of rape is substantially unchanged. The only modification is to Exception 2 — the marital rape exception age has been raised from 15 to 18, codifying the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in Independent Thought v. Union of India. The broader marital rape exception for wives above 18 remains.
What is the new offence under Section 69 BNS?
Section 69 criminalizes sexual intercourse (not amounting to rape) obtained through deceitful means, including false promises of marriage, employment, or promotion, and inducement after suppressing identity. This creates a separate offence category with punishment up to 10 years.
Has the punishment for rape increased under BNS?
Base punishment for rape remains unchanged — minimum 10 years RI, extendable to life imprisonment. However, the gang rape provision for minor victims now applies uniformly to all victims under 18 (up from 16), meaning more cases will attract death or whole-life imprisonment.
Are sexual offences gender-neutral under BNS?
The BNS has moved towards gender neutrality in some provisions, recognizing that perpetrators and victims can be of any gender. However, the core rape definition under Section 63 continues to define the offence in terms of a man committing acts against a woman, maintaining the gender-specific framework of the IPC.
What happens to cases registered under IPC sections that are still pending?
Cases registered under IPC sections before 1 July 2024 continue under the old section numbers for proceedings already underway. Fresh cases and new FIRs must cite the corresponding BNS provisions.