All NotesCriminal LawBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) · General Principles of Criminal Liability

Criminal Force Assault Sections 74 to 79 BNS

Criminal Force and Assault against Women: Sections 74 to 79 BNS Explained

Between the two poles of casual friction and completed rape lies a wide range of conduct that violates a woman's dignity, autonomy, and physical safety: unwanted touching, sexually coloured remarks, disrobing, non-consensual observation, persistent unwanted attention, and words meant to insult modesty. Sections 74 to 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, gather the specific offences that address this middle range. Building on the general definitions of criminal force (Section 129 BNS) and assault (Section 130 BNS), these six sections codify the offences of outraging modesty, sexual harassment, disrobing, voyeurism, stalking, and words or gestures insulting modesty. The framework substantially incorporates the 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act reforms, themselves shaped by the Vishaka judgment and the Verma Committee report. This module walks through the general concepts, each specific offence, and the leading Indian cases.

1. Introduction and General Concepts

Criminal force and assault under the BNS

Criminal force and assault are two of the most basic categories in Indian criminal law. Criminal force (Section 129 BNS, formerly Section 350 IPC) is the intentional use of force on a person without her consent, done for a criminal purpose or to cause injury or annoyance. Assault (Section 130 BNS, formerly Section 351 IPC) is the making of a gesture or preparation intended to cause reasonable apprehension of the imminent use of criminal force. Both concepts run through Chapter V of the BNS, where they are combined with specific mental elements and consequences to produce the offences against women in Sections 74 to 79.

The concept of modesty in Indian criminal law

The three propositions the courts have established

  • Modesty is a distinctive concept in Indian criminal law. It is not defined in the Sanhita, but has been elaborated through judicial interpretation.
  • Modesty attaches to every woman by virtue of being female, regardless of age. State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63, established this in a case involving a nine month old girl.
  • What outrages modesty is a question of fact in each case, but conduct that is sexually intrusive, disrespectful of a woman's autonomy, or violative of her sense of decency generally qualifies.

The evolution from IPC to BNS

The IPC as originally enacted contained only two sections dealing with the offences that Sections 74 to 79 BNS now cover: Section 354 IPC (assault to outrage modesty) and Section 509 IPC (words to insult modesty). The 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, following the Nirbhaya case, added Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (disrobing), 354C (voyeurism) and 354D (stalking). These provisions have been carried forward into the BNS in Sections 75 to 78, and the older sections have become Sections 74 (formerly 354) and 79 (formerly 509).

2. Section 129 BNS: Criminal Force

Section 129 BNS (formerly Section 350 IPC)

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.

The three key features of criminal force:

  • Intentional use of force. The use must be volitional, not accidental.
  • Without the other person's consent. If the other person has consented (as in a wrestling match under Section 25 BNS), no criminal force is used.
  • With one of three specific mental elements: to commit an offence, or to cause (or knowing likely to cause) injury, fear, or annoyance.

Force, for this purpose, includes any physical action that touches the other person or affects the other person's body, whether directly or through some medium (such as throwing a substance).

3. Section 130 BNS: Assault

Section 130 BNS (formerly Section 351 IPC)

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.

The two key features of assault:

  • A gesture or preparation.
  • Intention or knowledge that the gesture or preparation will cause the other person to apprehend the imminent use of criminal force.

Assault does not require actual physical contact. A raised fist, a drawn knife, or a hostile approach can be assault, provided the recipient reasonably apprehends the imminent use of criminal force. The Explanation to Section 130 clarifies that mere words do not amount to assault unless they add meaning to gestures or preparations.

4. Section 74 BNS: Assault to Outrage Modesty

Text of Section 74

Section 74 BNS (formerly Section 354 IPC)

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.

The four ingredients

The four cumulative ingredients

  • Assault or use of criminal force. Both concepts (Sections 129 and 130) are alternative bases. Physical contact is not always required.
  • Directed at a woman. The victim must be a woman. Male victims are not covered by this specific section.
  • Intention to outrage modesty, or knowledge that modesty is likely to be outraged. Both mental states are alternative bases.
  • Actual outraging of modesty, or likelihood thereof. This is judged objectively.

Meaning of modesty

📖 State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63

The Supreme Court considered whether the modesty of a nine month old girl could be outraged. The Court held that modesty is inherent in every female by virtue of being female, and that age is not relevant to whether modesty exists. What outrages modesty is a question of fact. The Court held that where the act done is such that a reasonable person would view it as an outrage on the sense of decency and dignity attaching to womanhood, the offence is made out. Rule: modesty attaches to every woman regardless of age; the test of outrage is objective.

Rupan Deol Bajaj and the exclusion of Section 33

📖 Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K. P. S. Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194

A senior police officer slapped the buttocks of a senior woman civil servant at a social gathering. He was charged under Section 354 IPC (now Section 74 BNS). He argued that Section 95 IPC (now Section 33 BNS) applied: the harm was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain. The Supreme Court rejected the argument. Outrage of modesty, the Court held, is a serious offence not amenable to the triviality exception. The specific interest protected by Section 354 puts it beyond the reach of Section 95. Rule: Section 33 BNS (triviality) does not apply to Section 74 BNS.

5. Section 75 BNS: Sexual Harassment

Section 75 BNS (formerly Section 354A IPC)

A man committing any of the following acts:

  • (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
  • (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
  • (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
  • (iv) making sexually coloured remarks,

shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

The four kinds of conduct

Section 75(1) BNS identifies four distinct kinds of conduct that constitute sexual harassment. Each has its own ingredients and its own punishment:

  • Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. This overlaps with Section 74 (outrage of modesty), but focuses specifically on sexual overtures rather than any conduct outraging modesty.
  • A demand or request for sexual favours. This addresses the quid pro quo dimension of sexual harassment, particularly in workplace and hierarchical relationships.
  • Showing pornography against the will of a woman. This addresses the use of sexual imagery to intimidate or humiliate.
  • Making sexually coloured remarks. This addresses verbal sexual harassment, whether in the workplace, in public, or otherwise.

Vishaka guidelines as the doctrinal foundation

📖 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241

The Supreme Court, in a case arising from the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace. In the absence of specific legislation, the guidelines had the force of law. The Court defined sexual harassment to include physical contact and advances, demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing of pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. These four categories became the framework for Section 354A IPC (now Section 75 BNS) in the 2013 amendment. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, gave detailed civil law effect to the guidelines.

Graduated punishment structure

Section 75(2) BNS punishment

  • For acts (i), (ii) and (iii): rigorous imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.
  • For act (iv) (sexually coloured remarks): imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both.

6. Section 76 BNS: Assault with Intent to Disrobe

Text and ingredients

Section 76 BNS (formerly Section 354B IPC)

Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Three ingredients:

  • Assault or use of criminal force by a man to a woman, or abetment of the same. Abetment is separately covered, capturing those who plan or instigate the disrobing.
  • Intention to disrobe or to compel the woman to be naked.
  • Minimum three years, maximum seven years, and fine. There is no possibility of a shorter sentence.

The specific evil addressed

Section 76 addresses the specific evil of disrobing as an instrument of humiliation. Historically, disrobing has been used as a form of collective punishment, particularly against women of subordinate caste, community, or class. The 1990 case of the alleged parading of a woman naked in Behmai (Uttar Pradesh) drew national attention to this evil. The 2013 amendment codified the offence following the Verma Committee's recommendations.

Overlap with attempt to rape

Where the disrobing is part of an attempt to rape, both Section 76 and Section 62 read with Section 63 (attempt to rape) may be relevant. In practice, prosecutions often charge both, and the court decides on the evidence which is made out. Where the intention to rape is proved, attempt to rape (with its heavier punishment) is preferred. Where only the intention to disrobe is proved, Section 76 applies.

7. Section 77 BNS: Voyeurism

Text and ingredients

Section 77 BNS (formerly Section 354C IPC)

Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Meaning of private act

Explanation 1 to Section 77 BNS

Private act includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear, or the victim is using a lavatory, or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.

The Explanation provides a specific definition of private act, capturing the classical situations: bathing, dressing, using the toilet, and engaging in sexual conduct. The reference to reasonably expected privacy protects both explicit privacy (in one's home) and reasonable privacy (in changing rooms, hotel bathrooms, and similar spaces).

Consented capture and non-consented dissemination

Explanation 2 to Section 77 BNS

Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.

Explanation 2 addresses the revenge pornography scenario. Where a woman has consented to intimate images being captured (as in a relationship), but has not consented to their dissemination, and the images are then disseminated (often after a relationship ends), the dissemination is voyeurism. This is one of the most important modern applications of the section.

📖 State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi, (2018) SCC OnLine Cal 407

The Calcutta High Court, in what is often described as the first Indian conviction for revenge pornography, applied Section 354C IPC (now Section 77 BNS) to a case of non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. The Court held that dissemination without consent constitutes voyeurism, notwithstanding that the original recording was consensual.

First and repeat offence punishment

Section 77 provides a graduated punishment structure:

  • First conviction: rigorous imprisonment of not less than one year, extending to three years, and fine.
  • Second or subsequent conviction: rigorous imprisonment of not less than three years, extending to seven years, and fine.

8. Section 78 BNS: Stalking

Section 78 BNS (formerly Section 354D IPC)

Any man who:

  • (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
  • (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,

commits the offence of stalking.

The two forms: physical and cyber

Section 78 captures two forms of stalking:

  • Physical stalking: following the woman and attempting to contact her repeatedly. This is the classical form.
  • Cyber stalking: monitoring her electronic communication. This is the modern form, particularly prevalent through social media, email, and messaging platforms.

The clear indication of disinterest requirement

Section 78(1)(i) requires a clear indication of disinterest by the woman before the conduct becomes stalking. A single approach, without a prior indication of disinterest, is generally not stalking. But once disinterest has been communicated, continued attempts to foster personal interaction cross into stalking. The threshold of a clear indication protects both the woman's right to be free from unwanted attention and the pursuer's right to engage in ordinary social communication.

Statutory exceptions

Section 78 provides three exceptions to the offence:

  • Conduct pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime by a person entrusted with such responsibility.
  • Conduct pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under law.
  • Conduct that, in the particular circumstances, was reasonable and justified.

These exceptions protect law enforcement, licit legal proceedings, and legitimate journalism, among other socially valuable activities that might otherwise be caught by the wide definition of stalking.

First and repeat offence punishment

  • First conviction: imprisonment up to three years, and fine.
  • Second or subsequent conviction: imprisonment up to five years, and fine.

9. Section 79 BNS: Words or Gestures Insulting Modesty

Section 79 BNS (formerly Section 509 IPC)

Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object in any form, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

Text and ingredients

Section 79 captures verbal and gestural insults to modesty, and also intrusion upon privacy. Ingredients:

  • Intention to insult the modesty of a woman.
  • Any of the specified conduct: uttering words, making sounds or gestures, exhibiting objects, or intruding upon privacy.
  • Intention that the words be heard, or the gestures or objects be seen, by the woman.

Distinction from Section 74

Section 74

Section 79

Section 74: assault to outrage modesty. Requires physical assault or use of criminal force.

Section 79: words or gestures insulting modesty. Does not require any physical assault or use of criminal force. Verbal or gestural conduct is enough.

Punishment: one to five years rigorous imprisonment, and fine.

Punishment: up to three years simple imprisonment, and fine.

The mental element: intention to outrage modesty, or knowledge of likelihood.

The mental element: intention to insult modesty (a slightly lower threshold than outrage).

Illustration: A grabs Z from behind. Section 74 applies.

Illustration: A shouts sexually explicit remarks at Z from a distance. Section 79 applies.

Intrusion upon privacy

Section 79 also covers intrusion upon privacy. Peeping into a woman's window, entering her private space without invitation, or otherwise breaching her privacy with intention to insult her modesty falls under this section. This overlaps somewhat with Section 77 (voyeurism), but Section 79 is broader (it does not require the woman to be engaged in a private act) and narrower (it requires the specific intention to insult modesty, not merely to observe).

10. Comparison of the Six Sections

Provision

Punishment

Section 74: assault to outrage modesty.

One to five years RI, and fine.

Section 75: sexual harassment (four kinds).

Up to three years for physical, demand, or pornography; up to one year for sexually coloured remarks.

Section 76: assault with intent to disrobe.

Three to seven years, and fine.

Section 77: voyeurism.

First offence: one to three years and fine. Repeat: three to seven years and fine.

Section 78: stalking (physical or cyber).

First offence: up to three years and fine. Repeat: up to five years and fine.

Section 79: words or gestures insulting modesty.

Up to three years simple imprisonment, and fine.

11. Judicial Elaboration and Landmark Cases

📖 State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63

Modesty attaches to every female by virtue of being female. Age is not relevant. Even a nine month old girl can have her modesty outraged.

📖 Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K. P. S. Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194

Section 33 BNS (triviality) does not apply to Section 74. Outrage of modesty is a serious offence not amenable to the trivialisation defence.

📖 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241

Sexual harassment at workplace defined. The four categories that became Section 354A IPC (now Section 75 BNS).

📖 Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 3 SCC 407

Guidelines against victim blaming and patriarchal stereotyping. Applies across all offences in Chapter V.

📖 State v. Amit Kumar Kumar Singh, (2018) Delhi Trial Court

First conviction under Section 354D IPC (stalking, now Section 78 BNS) in a case involving repeated unwanted contact and physical following.

📖 State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi, (2018) SCC OnLine Cal 407

First Indian conviction for revenge pornography under Section 354C IPC (now Section 77 BNS).

📖 Nikhil Sonu Fake v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) Bombay HC

Cyber stalking under Section 354D IPC. The Court held that repeated unwanted messages through social media constitute stalking within the section.

📖 Ravi @ Bhava v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) Bombay HC

Voyeurism using a mobile phone camera. The Court held that circumstances of expected privacy (change room, hotel room) are protected under Section 354C IPC.

📖 Aravind Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2019) Delhi HC

Sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC. Repeated sexually coloured remarks by a workplace superior held to be within the section.

12. Consolidated Landmark Judgments

  • State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63. Modesty attaches to every female regardless of age.
  • Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K. P. S. Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194. Section 33 BNS (triviality) does not apply to Section 74. Outrage of modesty is a serious offence.
  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241. Sexual harassment guidelines. Doctrinal foundation for Section 75 BNS.
  • Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297. Implementation of Vishaka guidelines. Prompted the 2013 amendment.
  • Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 3 SCC 407. Guidelines against victim blaming. Applies to all offences in Chapter V.
  • State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi, (2018) SCC OnLine Cal 407. First conviction for revenge pornography under Section 354C IPC (now Section 77 BNS).
  • Ravi @ Bhava v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) Bombay HC. Voyeurism using mobile camera. Expected privacy protected.
  • State v. Amit Kumar Singh, (2018) Delhi Trial Court. Physical stalking under Section 354D IPC.
  • Nikhil Sonu Fake v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) Bombay HC. Cyber stalking through social media.
  • Aravind Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2019) Delhi HC. Sexual harassment by workplace superior.
  • Punjab Kesari v. State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 3238. Section 509 IPC (now Section 79 BNS) applied to intrusive telephone calls.
  • Kanwar Pal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 161. Modesty outrage in a public setting. Section 354 IPC applied.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are Sections 74 to 79 BNS?

Sections 74 to 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, punish six categories of criminal force and assault against women: outraging modesty (Section 74), sexual harassment (Section 75), disrobing (Section 76), voyeurism (Section 77), stalking (Section 78), and words or gestures insulting modesty (Section 79). Together they form the core framework for offences against women short of rape.

What is Section 74 BNS?

Section 74 BNS (formerly Section 354 IPC) punishes assault or use of criminal force to any woman with intention or knowledge of outraging her modesty. Punishment is one to five years rigorous imprisonment, and fine. Rupan Deol Bajaj v K P S Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194, established that Section 33 BNS (triviality) does not apply. Outrage of modesty is a serious offence.

What is the difference between Section 74 BNS and Section 79 BNS?

Section 74 requires physical assault or use of criminal force to outrage modesty. Section 79 does not require any physical act; verbal or gestural conduct with intention to insult modesty is enough. Section 74 carries one to five years rigorous imprisonment; Section 79 carries up to three years simple imprisonment. Both cover the wide field of insulting a woman's dignity, but at different levels of gravity.

What kinds of conduct are covered by Section 75 BNS?

Section 75 BNS covers four kinds: (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; (ii) demand or request for sexual favours; (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; and (iv) making sexually coloured remarks. Physical, demand, and pornography attract up to three years imprisonment; sexually coloured remarks attract up to one year.

What is Section 77 BNS (voyeurism)?

Section 77 BNS punishes watching, capturing the image of, or disseminating the image of a woman engaged in a private act in circumstances where she would usually expect privacy. Explanation 2 makes clear that even where the woman consented to the capture, non-consented dissemination is voyeurism. This addresses the revenge pornography scenario. First conviction: one to three years and fine. Repeat: three to seven years and fine.

What is Section 78 BNS (stalking)?

Section 78 BNS punishes stalking in two forms: (i) following a woman and attempting to contact her repeatedly despite clear disinterest; and (ii) monitoring her electronic communication (cyber stalking). First conviction: up to three years and fine. Repeat: up to five years and fine. Exceptions apply for law enforcement, legal duty, and reasonable and justified conduct in particular circumstances.

Related Topics on The Legal Bridge

For a fuller picture, read these companion notes on adjacent doctrines and provisions:

  • Sexual Offences Against Women under BNS: the wider Chapter V framework.
  • Rape under Section 63 BNS: the substantive offence of rape and its aggravated forms.
  • Attempt to Rape: distinguishing attempt to rape from Sections 74 and 76.
  • Rights of the Accused: constitutional protections that apply in prosecutions under Chapter V.

Quick Summary

Sections 74 to 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, punish six categories of criminal force and assault against women: outraging modesty (Section 74), sexual harassment (Section 75), disrobing (Section 76), voyeurism (Section 77), stalking (Section 78), and words or gestures insulting modesty (Section 79). Punishments range from one year (sexually coloured remarks under Section 75) to seven years (disrobing under Section 76 and repeat voyeurism under Section 77). The framework builds on the general definitions of criminal force (Section 129 BNS) and assault (Section 130 BNS) and codifies the 2013 amendment reforms following the Nirbhaya case.