Comparison Between IPC Sections and BNS Clauses: A Modern Perspective

Introduction

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), established in 1860, has been the cornerstone of criminal justice in India for over a century. With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in 2023, a major shift is underway. The BNS represents India’s move towards modernising and decolonising its legal system. This blog explores the key differences between the IPC and the BNS, highlighting how the new legislation seeks to align better with contemporary Indian values and address today’s challenges.

Historical Context and Objectives

IPC (Indian Penal Code):

• Colonial Legacy: The IPC was enacted during British rule, designed to impose British legal principles on a diverse Indian population. It reflects a colonial mindset aimed at controlling and managing society according to British norms.
• Purpose: The primary goal of the IPC was to create a uniform legal code to handle criminal offences, maintaining colonial authority and order.

BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita):

• Modern Reform: Introduced in 2023, the BNS represents a significant departure from colonial legacies. It is part of India’s efforts to decolonise its legal system and adapt to contemporary values.
• Objective: The BNS realigns the criminal code with current societal needs and values, aiming to create a more relevant and fair legal framework for modern India.

Structural and Terminological Differences

IPC:

• Traditional Structure: Divided into sections that cover various offences, the IPC’s terminology and classifications often seem outdated.
• Legal Jargon: Terms such as ‘theft,’ ‘robbery,’ and ‘murder’ may not fully capture the nuances of modern criminal activities.

BNS:

• Revised Organization: The BNS reorganises criminal offences into a more contemporary format, making it easier to navigate and apply.
• Updated Terminology: New terms and categories reflect a more nuanced approach to justice, aligning with today’s legal and societal understandings.

Focus on Specific Offenses

IPC:

• Traditional Focus: The IPC addresses a broad range of offences but struggles with modern issues like cybercrime and gender-based violence.
• Limitations: Some provisions are seen as outdated, failing to address newer forms of crime emerging in the digital age.

BNS:

• Contemporary Relevance: Updated definitions and provisions in the BNS cover modern offences like cybercrime and gender-based violence.
• Forward-Thinking: The BNS aims to tackle contemporary crimes that were inadequately covered or ignored previously.

Sentencing and Penal Provisions

IPC:

• Punitive Measures: The IPC traditionally emphasises deterrence and retribution, often resulting in lengthy incarcerations.
• Rehabilitation Gaps: There may be a lack of rehabilitative or restorative justice elements, overlooking opportunities for offender reintegration.

BNS:

• Balanced Approach: The BNS incorporates both punitive and rehabilitative measures, offering alternatives like community service and restorative justice.
• Restorative Focus: By including restorative justice principles, the BNS addresses the needs of victims while supporting the reintegration of offenders into society.

Human Rights and Social Justice

IPC:

• Human Rights Concerns: The IPC includes provisions that reflect outdated societal norms and may not fully address human rights issues.
• Social Justice Shortcomings: The IPC’s approach to social justice is sometimes insufficient, particularly for marginalised groups.

BNS:

• Enhanced Protections: The BNS strengthens human rights protections and incorporates broader social justice considerations, better safeguarding marginalised communities.
• Inclusive Justice: By focusing on human rights and social equity, the BNS strives to create a more inclusive and just legal system.

Procedural Changes

IPC:

• Procedural Rigidity: The procedural laws under the IPC are complex and slow, contributing to delays and inefficiencies in the justice system.
• Bureaucratic Challenges: The IPC’s procedural framework is often criticised for being cumbersome and bureaucratic.

BNS:

• Efficient Processes: The BNS aims to simplify and streamline legal procedures, making the justice system more efficient and accessible.
• Modernisation: By modernising procedural aspects, the BNS enhances the speed and effectiveness of legal proceedings, reducing delays and improving overall justice delivery.

Similarities Between the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

1. Core Legal Framework:

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) preserves the core definitions of various offences as established in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The definitions of serious crimes such as murder, theft, fraud, and domestic violence remain largely unchanged in their substantive content. Both codes are structured to cover a wide range of criminal offences, from crimes against the state to those against individuals, with the organisation of chapters and clauses in the BNS following the general framework laid out by the IPC.

2. Punishments: 

The BNS continues to follow the same punishment framework as the IPC for most offences. For instance, the penalties for murder (death or life imprisonment), theft (up to 3 years imprisonment), and fraud (up to 7 years imprisonment) remain consistent. Both codes also retain capital punishment for the most severe crimes, such as murder.

3. Protection of Rights: 

Both legal frameworks prioritise the protection of victims’ rights, particularly in cases of sexual violence, domestic abuse, and dowry-related crimes. Legal protections for victims remain robust under both the IPC and BNS. Furthermore, they acknowledge the potential for misuse of certain provisions, such as IPC’s Section 498A, and have built-in safeguards to prevent legal abuse while ensuring justice.

4. Judicial Precedents: 

Like the IPC, the BNS will continue to rely on the extensive body of judicial interpretations and precedents developed over time. This ensures that the principles established through judicial rulings under the IPC remain influential, preserving continuity in legal interpretations.

5. Offences Related to Property: 

The BNS retains the IPC’s approach to property-related crimes, such as theft, robbery, extortion, and criminal breach of trust. The essential elements, definitions, and punishments for these offences have largely remained unchanged.

6. Offences Against the State: 

Both codes maintain strict provisions against crimes that threaten national security, including sedition, waging war against the state, and terrorism.

7. Criminal Liability: 

The BNS upholds the same standards of criminal liability as the IPC, maintaining the concepts of mens rea (intent) and actus reus (action). The principles of intent, culpability, and negligence remain central to determining criminal liability under both frameworks.

8. Procedural Continuity: 

Both codes align with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ensuring that procedural aspects like arrests, investigations, and trials remain consistent. This ensures seamless coordination between criminal laws and procedures.

9. Language and Terminology: 

While the BNS introduces some refinements in language, much of the established legal terminology from the IPC remains intact. This retention helps legal professionals and the judiciary transition to the new code without significant disruption.

10. Broad Applicability: 

Both the IPC and BNS are intended for nationwide application, ensuring that criminal law remains uniform across India.

Difference Between IPC and BNS

1. Offences Related to Rape & Sexual Harassment (IPC vs BNS)

Definition of Rape

IPC Section 375: Rape is defined under Section 375 with detailed explanations of what constitutes lack of consent. The case of Nirbhaya (2012), where a young woman was brutally gang-raped and assaulted in Delhi, highlighted the harsh realities of rape and led to nationwide protests. This case resulted in significant amendments to rape laws in India, including the introduction of the death penalty for certain rape cases. An exception in this section does not recognise marital rape as an offence unless the wife is under 18 years of age.

BNS Clause 63: The definition of rape under the BNS remains largely similar to IPC Section 375, including the conditions under which sexual intercourse is considered rape. There are ongoing debates in Indian courts challenging the marital rape exception, though the BNS continues the IPC’s stance, not criminalising marital rape where the wife is above 18 years. Key differences include minor adjustments in language for clarity, but the core definition and exceptions, particularly around marital rape, remain the same.

Punishment for Rape

IPC Section 376: The punishment for rape under IPC Section 376 includes imprisonment not less than 10 years, extending to life imprisonment or even the death penalty. In the Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994) case, Chatterjee was convicted of raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl and was sentenced to death, a rare instance under Section 376.

BNS Clause 64: The punishment structure under the BNS mirrors the IPC, with minimum sentences and life imprisonment or death in aggravated cases. If enacted, the BNS is expected to enforce similar levels of strict punishment for severe sexual crimes, reinforcing the message that such offences will not be tolerated. The BNS introduces procedural changes, but the substantive law regarding punishment remains consistent with the IPC.

Sexual Harassment

IPC Section 354A: Defines sexual harassment and prescribes punishment for acts such as unwelcome physical contact and sexually coloured remarks. The Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case led to the formulation of guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, setting a precedent for legal measures that later influenced Section 354A.

BNS Clause 69: This clause simplifies and clarifies the language of sexual harassment while maintaining the core aspects of the offence as defined in the IPC. The BNS’s clearer definitions may assist employers in implementing and enforcing anti-harassment policies more effectively, potentially reducing workplace harassment incidents.

Assault to Outrage Modesty

IPC Section 354: Criminalizes the assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (1995) case involved an IAS officer accusing a high-ranking police officer of outraging her modesty. The conviction highlighted the section’s application even against powerful individuals.

BNS Clause 68: Retains the essence of Section 354 but refines the language. The clearer definitions under the BNS may make it easier for victims to pursue justice, especially in cases involving influential individuals.

Voyeurism and Stalking

IPC Sections 354C and 354D: Section 354C defines and punishes voyeurism, while Section 354D criminalises stalking with penalties of up to 3 years for first-time offenders. The State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat (2018) case demonstrated the legal system’s responsiveness to complaints of stalking.

BNS Clauses 71 and 72: These clauses retain the offences as defined in the IPC with minor linguistic changes. With increasing cases of cyberstalking, the BNS’s provisions may be tested in the context of online harassment, requiring judicial interpretation to address digital crimes.

Child Sexual Abuse

IPC Sections 376AB, 376DA, 376DB: These sections focus on sexual offences against children, prescribing life imprisonment or death in severe cases. The Kathua Rape Case (2018) involved the gang rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl, emphasising the need for stringent laws against child sexual abuse.

BNS Clause 66: Maintains stringent penalties for child sexual abuse, with the BNS’s clear stance likely aiding in quicker convictions and stronger deterrence, particularly in regions where such crimes are prevalent.

Protection of Victim’s Identity

IPC Section 228A: Prohibits the disclosure of rape victims’ identities. In the Disha Case (2019), the identity of the victim was protected under this section, highlighting the need for strict enforcement to preserve the dignity of the victim’s family.

BNS Clause 72(2): Mirrors this provision, emphasising the protection of victim identity. With the rise of media trials, the BNS’s guidelines could be pivotal in safeguarding victim identities in high-profile cases.

Marital Rape

Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 375 (Exception 2):

Definition: Sexual intercourse by a man with his wife is not considered rape if the wife is above 18 years old.

Case Study: Numerous petitions have been filed challenging this exception to marital rape, with courts often deferring to legislative change, which has not yet occurred.

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Clause 63 (Exception 2):

Definition: Similar to the IPC, this clause maintains that marital rape is not recognised unless the wife is under 18 years old.

Example: The BNS’s stance on marital rape may continue to face legal challenges as societal norms shift and calls for the criminalisation of marital rape grow stronger.

Key Difference: There is no substantive difference between the IPC and BNS on this matter; both maintain the exception for marital rape, which remains a contentious issue.

Comparative Analysis of Offenses Related to Rape & Sexual Harassment (IPC vs BNS)

Aspect	IPC Section	BNS Clause	Key Differences	Case Studies/Examples
Definition of Rape	Section 375: Defines rape, consent, and exceptions, including marital rape not being recognised unless the wife is under 18.	Clause 63: Similar definition with minor language adjustments, marital rape exception retained.	Minor language adjustments; core definitions remain the same.	Nirbhaya Case (2012): Nationwide protests and amendments to rape laws in India. Ongoing Debates on Marital Rape: Challenges to the marital rape exception continue.
Punishment for Rape	Section 376: Minimum 10 years, life imprisonment, or death in aggravated cases.	Clause 64: Similar punishment structure with potential procedural changes.	Substantive law regarding punishment remains consistent.	Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994): Death penalty for rape and murder of a minor girl.
Sexual Harassment	Section 354A: Defines and prescribes punishment for unwelcome physical contact, advances, and remarks.	Clause 69: Simplifies language while maintaining core definitions.	More precise language and clarity in defining sexual harassment.	Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Established guidelines for workplace sexual harassment.
Assault to Outrage Modesty	Section 354: Criminalizes assault or force intended to outrage a woman’s modesty.	Clause 68: Retains essence with refined language.	Provides clearer definitions; substantive law unchanged.	Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (1995): Conviction of a high-ranking official for outraging modesty.
Voyeurism and Stalking	Sections 354C and 354D: Punishments for voyeurism and stalking, with up to 3 years for stalking.	Clauses 71 and 72: Retains offences with minor linguistic changes.	Streamlined approach without altering substantive law.	State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat (2018): Conviction for stalking a minor girl. Digital Age Stalking: Potential future cases involving cyberstalking.
Child Sexual Abuse	Sections 376AB, 376DA, 376DB: Life imprisonment or death for sexual offences against children.	Clause 66: Maintains stringent penalties for child sexual abuse.	Language simplification; a strong stance against child sexual offences remains.	Kathua Rape Case (2018): Severe punishment for the gang rape and murder of a minor girl.
Protection of Victim’s Identity	Section 228A: Prohibits disclosure of rape victims’ identity.	Clause 72(2): Mirrors IPC, emphasising victim identity protection.	Potentially a more robust framework for victim privacy.	Disha Case (2019): Strict enforcement of victim identity protection in a high-profile case.
Marital Rape	Section 375 (Exception 2): Marital rape is not recognised unless the wife is under 18 years.	Clause 63 (Exception 2): Maintains the same exception.	No substantive difference; the marital rape exception remains.	Numerous Petitions: Ongoing legal challenges to the marital rape exception. Continued Legal Debate: Anticipated future challenges to the BNS’s stance on marital rape.

2. Offences Related to Fraud (IPC vs BNS)

Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property

IPC Section 420:
This section deals with the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property. It involves deceiving someone to make them deliver property or alter valuable securities. The punishment includes imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine.

Case Study: The Satyam Scandal (2009) is a prominent example where Ramalinga Raju, the founder of Satyam Computers, was convicted under Section 420 for one of India’s largest corporate frauds involving financial statement manipulation.

BNS Clause 315:
This clause mirrors IPC Section 420, emphasising deception and dishonesty in inducing the delivery of property. The punishment is consistent with the IPC, including up to 7 years of imprisonment and a fine.

Example: BNS aims to address high-profile fraud cases more efficiently, providing streamlined legal processes for quicker trials and convictions.

Key Difference: BNS offers clearer language while retaining the substantive law regarding cheating and dishonesty.

Forgery

IPC Sections 463-465:
These sections address forgery, involving the creation of false documents or electronic records with intent to cause damage or injury. Punishment includes imprisonment for up to 2 years, with or without a fine.

Case Study: In the Abhishek Verma Case (2012), an Indian arms dealer was charged under Section 465 for falsifying documents related to illegal deals.

BNS Clauses 333-334:
The BNS provides a more detailed definition of forgery, expanding on false documents or electronic records. The punishment remains similar to the IPC, with imprisonment up to 2 years and a fine.

Example: With the rise of digital records, BNS is expected to handle electronic forgery cases more efficiently.

Key Difference: BNS offers a refined definition suited to the digital age, though penalties remain unchanged.

Counterfeiting

IPC Sections 489A-489E:
These sections address counterfeiting currency, including the production and possession of counterfeit notes. Punishment ranges from imprisonment for life to up to 10 years, with a fine.

Case Study: The Fake Indian Currency Note (FICN) racket involved numerous prosecutions under these sections for counterfeit currency production and circulation, often linked to cross-border criminal activities.

BNS Clauses 365-369:
BNS retains the IPC’s focus on counterfeiting but introduces precise language for digital and electronic counterfeiting methods. The punishment remains the same as the IPC.

Example: BNS is expected to handle better-emerging forms of counterfeiting, such as digital currency fraud.

Key Difference: Enhanced language in BNS addresses modern counterfeiting techniques while retaining similar penalties.

Criminal Breach of Trust

IPC Section 405:
This section deals with criminal breach of trust, where a person entrusted with property dishonestly misappropriates or converts it for personal use. Punishment includes imprisonment for up to 3 years, or a fine, or both.

Case Study: The Nirav Modi Case (2018) involved charges of criminal breach of trust under Section 405, with Modi defrauding the Punjab National Bank of nearly ₹11,000 crores.

BNS Clause 322:
BNS closely follows IPC’s definition but introduces clearer language, particularly regarding digital assets and electronic funds. The punishment remains consistent with the IPC.

Example: BNS is expected to handle cases involving digital assets and cryptocurrencies, which are increasingly relevant.

Key Difference: BNS includes modern assets like digital currencies in its scope, offering a contemporary framework for criminal breach of trust.

Fraudulent Deeds and Dispositions of Property

IPC Sections 421-424:
These sections address fraudulent deeds and dispositions of property, including concealing property to defraud creditors. The punishment includes imprisonment for up to 2 years, with or without a fine.

Case Study: The Harshad Mehta Case (1992) involved charges under these sections for creating fraudulent securities transactions to manipulate the stock market.

BNS Clauses 342-345:
BNS provides a comprehensive definition of fraudulent deeds and includes specific provisions for digital and electronic property. The punishment aligns with the IPC, with imprisonment up to 2 years and a fine.

Example: BNS’s broader scope is expected to cover emerging fraud cases involving digital properties.

Key Difference: BNS includes a broader definition, incorporating digital assets and aligning with contemporary fraud practices.

Comparative Analysis of Offenses Related to Fraud (IPC vs BNS)

Aspect	IPC Section	BNS Clause	Key Differences	Case Studies/Examples
Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property	Section 420: Cheating and inducing delivery of property with deception.	Clause 315: Similar definition with refined language.	Language refinement; substantive law remains the same.	Satyam Scandal (2009): Corporate fraud involving financial statement manipulation.
Forgery	Sections 463-465: Making false documents or electronic records with intent to deceive.	Clauses 333-334: Expanded and clearer definition, especially for electronic records.	More refined and detailed definitions for the digital age.	Abhishek Verma Case (2012): Forgery charges in arms deal with falsified documents.
Counterfeiting	Sections 489A-489E: Counterfeiting currency notes or banknotes.	Clauses 365-369: Retains focus but introduces precise language for digital methods.	Enhanced language for modern counterfeiting techniques.	Fake Indian Currency Note (FICN) Racket: Prosecution for producing and circulating counterfeit currency.
Criminal Breach of Trust	Section 405: Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of entrusted property.	Clause 322: Clearer language, including digital assets and electronic funds.	Broader scope to include modern assets like cryptocurrencies.	Nirav Modi Case (2018): Defrauding a bank of ₹11,000 crores through criminal breach of trust.
Fraudulent Deeds and Dispositions of Property	Sections 421-424: Fraudulent deeds and concealment of property to defraud creditors.	Clauses 342-345: Comprehensive definition, including digital and electronic property.	Broader definition encompassing digital assets.	Harshad Mehta Case (1992): Stock market fraud involving fraudulent securities transactions.

3. Offences Related to Murder (IPC vs BNS)

Definition and Punishment for Murder
IPC Section 302: This section deals with the punishment for murder, defined as causing the death of a person with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to result in death. The punishment includes the death penalty or life imprisonment, and a fine.

Case Study: In the Nirbhaya Case (2012), the brutal gang rape and murder led to the conviction and sentencing of the perpetrators under Section 302, demonstrating the application of the death penalty in heinous crimes.

BNS Clause 101: The BNS mirrors the IPC’s definition of murder, focusing on intentional killing. It simplifies legal language without changing the substantive meaning. The punishment remains the same as under the IPC, including the death penalty or life imprisonment and a fine.
Example: The BNS is expected to impose similar stringent penalties for heinous murders, maintaining the same level of legal seriousness as the IPC.

Key Difference: The BNS introduces clearer language but retains the same definition and punishments as the IPC.

Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

IPC Section 304: This section addresses culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause death, but lacks the premeditation of murder. The punishment can be life imprisonment or up to 10 years imprisonment, with a fine.
Case Study: In the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976), the court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, emphasising the role of intent and premeditation in determining the charge.

BNS Clause 102: The BNS maintains the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, focusing on intent and premeditation with refined language for clarity. The punishments are consistent with those under the IPC.
Example: The BNS will handle cases with the same emphasis on distinguishing intent, preserving the nuanced application of the law.

Key Difference: The BNS offers clearer language but retains the substantive distinctions and penalties of the IPC.

Dowry Death

IPC Section 304B: This section specifically addresses dowry deaths, where a woman’s death is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage, showing she was subjected to cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands. The punishment includes a minimum of 7 years imprisonment, extending to life imprisonment.
Case Study: In Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991), the court upheld the conviction for dowry death under Section 304B, reinforcing its application.

BNS Clause 105: The BNS adopts the provisions of Section 304B with minor refinements for clarity in legal proceedings. The punishments remain the same as those under the IPC.
Example: The BNS will continue to address dowry deaths with a focus on strict enforcement to prevent such crimes.

Key Difference: The BNS maintains the framework for dowry deaths with slight linguistic improvements.

Abetment of Suicide

IPC Section 306: This section covers the abetment of suicide, where a person encourages or assists another in committing suicide. The punishment is imprisonment up to 10 years, and a fine.

Case Study: The Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) case, while primarily about euthanasia, touched upon the legality of abetment of suicide, distinguishing it from euthanasia.

BNS Clause 110: The BNS retains the provisions on abetment of suicide with refined language for clarity. The punishment remains consistent with the IPC, up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine.
Example: The BNS will likely handle the abetment of suicide cases with a focus on the nuances of intent and encouragement, maintaining the seriousness of the offence.

Key Difference: The BNS introduces more precise language but maintains the same legal principles and penalties as the IPC.

Attempt to Murder

IPC Section 307: This section deals with attempts to murder, where an individual acts with the intent to cause death in a manner that, if successful, would result in murder. The punishment can be imprisonment up to 10 years or life imprisonment, and a fine.
Case Study: In Shiv Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. (2018), the accused was prosecuted under Section 307 for attempting to kill the victim by stabbing, illustrating the section’s applicability.

BNS Clause 109: The BNS maintains the provisions of the IPC regarding attempts to murder, with clearer language to enhance legal interpretation. The punishments remain the same as under the IPC.
Example: The BNS is expected to address attempts to murder with continued focus on intent and premeditation.

Key Difference: The BNS clarifies legal language but retains the substantive law and penalties of the IPC.

Comparative Analysis of Offenses Related to Murder (IPC vs BNS)

Aspect	IPC Section	BNS Clause	Key Differences	Case Studies/Examples
Definition and Punishment for Murder	Section 302: Death penalty or life imprisonment for causing death with intent.	Clause 101: Mirrors IPC with clearer language.	Language refinement; core definition and punishments remain.	Nirbhaya Case (2012): Application of the death penalty for heinous crimes.
Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder	Section 304: Distinguishes between murder and culpable homicide based on intent.	Clause 102: Retains distinction with refined language.	Clearer language; substantive law remains unchanged.	State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976): Differentiation between murder and culpable homicide.
Dowry Death	Section 304B: Specific to dowry deaths, with a minimum of 7 years’ imprisonment.	Clause 105: Adopts IPC provisions with linguistic improvements.	Minor linguistic refinements; punishment unchanged.	Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991): Conviction under Section 304B for dowry death.
Abetment of Suicide	Section 306: Punishes abetment of suicide with up to 10 years’ imprisonment.	Clause 110: Retains provisions with refined language.	More precise language; legal principles and penalties unchanged.	Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): Discussion on euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Attempt to Murder	Section 307: Punishment for attempts to murder, with up to 10 years’ imprisonment or life.	Clause 109: Maintains same provisions with clearer language.	Clarified language; substantive law and penalties remain.	Shiv Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. (2018): Prosecution for attempted murder.

4. Offence Related to Domestic (IPC vs. BNS)

Definition and General Provisions Against Domestic Violence

IPC Section 498A:

• Definition: Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. “Cruelty” encompasses any willful conduct that could drive a woman to suicide or cause grave harm to her life, limb, or health.
• Punishment: Imprisonment for up to 3 years and a fine.
• Case Study: In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court of India discussed the misuse of Section 498A, noting that while it is crucial for women’s protection, there were instances of misuse, leading to calls for stricter application guidelines.

BNS Clause 114:

• Definition: BNS Clause 114 mirrors Section 498A but provides clearer definitions and guidelines to ensure precise application, focusing on protecting women while addressing misuse concerns.
• Punishment: The punishment is similar to that under the IPC, with imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine.
• Example: The BNS aims to handle domestic violence cases with a balanced approach, ensuring the law is effectively applied without being either underused or misused.
• Key Difference: The BNS includes refined language and detailed guidelines to prevent misuse while maintaining women’s protection.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA)

• Definition: The PWDVA is a comprehensive legislation providing civil remedies to women facing domestic violence. It covers various forms of abuse, including physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, and economic.
• Provisions: It allows for protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation orders.
• Case Study: In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court expanded the term “domestic relationship” to include relationships in the nature of marriage, thus protecting women in live-in relationships.

BNS Clauses (Incorporated Provisions):

• Definition: The BNS incorporates protections similar to those under the PWDVA, providing civil remedies for domestic violence cases. The provisions are concise and integrated within the broader criminal framework.
• Provisions: Women can seek protection orders, monetary relief, and other remedies similar to those under the PWDVA.
• Example: The BNS aims to streamline the legal process for victims seeking protection, making it easier to navigate the legal system.
• Key Difference: The BNS consolidates and streamlines provisions akin to those in the PWDVA, offering a unified framework for addressing domestic violence.

Dowry-Related Domestic Violence

IPC Section 304B (Dowry Death):

• Definition: Section 304B deals with dowry deaths, where a woman’s death is caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurs under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage, showing she was subjected to cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands.
• Punishment: Minimum imprisonment of 7 years, extending to life imprisonment.
• Case Study: Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991) reinforced Section 304B’s application, upholding the conviction of an accused for causing the dowry death of a victim.

BNS Clause 115:

• Definition: The BNS adopts Section 304B’s provisions with minor linguistic refinements to ensure clarity in legal proceedings.
• Punishment: The punishment remains the same as under the IPC, with a minimum of 7 years’ imprisonment, extending to life imprisonment.
• Example: The BNS is expected to maintain strict enforcement to prevent dowry-related deaths.
• Key Difference: The BNS maintains the legal framework with slight linguistic improvements.

Abetment of Suicide Due to Domestic Violence

IPC Section 306:

• Definition: Section 306 addresses the abetment of suicide, where a person encourages or assists another in committing suicide, often linked to severe domestic violence.
• Punishment: Imprisonment for up to 10 years and a fine.
• Case Study: Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (1990) upheld the conviction of a husband and his family for abetting the suicide of the wife, who was subjected to continuous domestic violence and dowry demands.

BNS Clause 118:

• Definition: The BNS retains provisions related to the abetment of suicide, focusing on cases where domestic violence contributes to the act. The language is refined for precise application.
• Punishment: The punishment remains consistent with the IPC, with up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine.
• Example: The BNS is expected to address such cases with a focus on the severe consequences of domestic violence leading to suicide.
• Key Difference: The BNS introduces clearer language but retains the same substantive law and penalties.

Harassment for Dowry and Domestic Cruelty

IPC Section 498A:

• Definition: Section 498A also covers harassment for dowry and cruelty by the husband or his relatives. It is closely related to other sections dealing with domestic violence.
• Punishment: Imprisonment for up to 3 years and a fine.
• Case Study: Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) laid down guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498A, emphasising proper investigation before arresting the accused.

BNS Clause 114 (Linked with Clause 115):

• Definition: The BNS includes provisions addressing harassment for dowry and domestic cruelty, ensuring effective prosecution while mitigating misuse risks.
• Punishment: The punishment remains consistent with the IPC, with imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine.
• Example: The BNS’s balanced approach aims to protect domestic violence victims while ensuring fair application of the law.
• Key Difference: The BNS offers a more balanced approach with refined language to protect women while preventing misuse.

Comparative Analysis of Offenses Related to Domestic Violence (IPC vsBNS)

Aspect	IPC Section / Act	BNS Clause	Key Differences	Case Studies/Examples
General Provisions Against Domestic Violence	Section 498A: Cruelty by husband or relatives, includes any willful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury.	Clause 114: Clearer definitions and guidelines to prevent misuse while maintaining protection.	Refined language and guidelines to ensure balanced application.	Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005): Supreme Court examined misuse of Section 498A.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA)	PWDVA: Civil remedies for physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, and economic abuse.	Incorporated Provisions: Similar protections integrated into the BNS, providing a streamlined approach.	Consolidates and streamlines PWDVA provisions for a unified legal framework.	Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): Expanded protection to women in live-in relationships.
Dowry-Related Domestic Violence	Section 304B: Addresses dowry deaths with a minimum of 7 years’ imprisonment.	Clause 115: Similar provisions with minor refinements in language.	Maintains legal framework for dowry-related violence, with slight linguistic improvements.	Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991): Conviction for dowry death upheld under Section 304B.
Abetment of Suicide Due to Domestic Violence	Section 306: Punishes abetment of suicide, often linked to severe domestic violence.	Clause 118: Retains provisions, focusing on cases linked to domestic violence.	Clearer language with the same substantive law and penalties.	Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (1990): Conviction upheld for abetting suicide due to domestic violence.
Harassment for Dowry and Domestic Cruelty	Section 498A: Covers harassment for dowry and domestic cruelty.	Clause 114 (Linked with Clause 115): Addresses harassment for dowry, with a focus on fair application.	More balanced approach with refined language to prevent misuse.	Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): Guidelines to prevent misuse of Section 498A.

5. Offences Related to Simple Theft (IPC vs BNS)

IPC Section 378: Theft is defined as the dishonest removal of movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it. The punishment for theft under Section 379 includes imprisonment up to 3 years, or a fine, or both. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale (2001), the accused was convicted under Section 379 for stealing a motorcycle. The case underscored that even temporary removal of property with dishonest intent could constitute theft.

BNS Clause 150: This clause retains the definition of theft from IPC Section 378 but refines the language for clarity. The punishment remains the same as under IPC, with imprisonment up to 3 years, or a fine, or both. The BNS is expected to handle simple theft cases with the same legal principles, ensuring clarity and consistency in the application of the law. The key difference is that the BNS offers clearer language while maintaining the substantive legal framework and penalties of the IPC.

Theft in Dwelling House, etc.

IPC Section 380: This section addresses theft committed in a dwelling house, building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property. The punishment includes imprisonment up to 7 years and a fine. In Chandrapal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 380 for theft of valuable items from a house, emphasising the heightened penalty for theft in a dwelling.

BNS Clause 151: The BNS mirrors the definition of theft in a dwelling house as per Section 380 but with refined language for legal clarity. The punishment remains consistent, with imprisonment up to 7 years and a fine. The BNS’s clear language will likely aid in the efficient prosecution of theft cases occurring in residences and other dwellings. The key difference is that the BNS provides linguistic clarity while retaining the substance of the law and its penalties.

Theft by Clerk or Servant of Property in Possession of Master

IPC Section 381: This section addresses theft by a clerk or servant of property in possession of their master or employer, considered more serious due to the breach of trust involved. The punishment includes imprisonment up to 7 years and a fine. In State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2002), the accused, a servant, was convicted for stealing cash from his employer’s safe, highlighting the seriousness of theft involving a breach of trust.

BNS Clause 152: The BNS retains the provisions of Section 381 with slight modifications in language to enhance understanding. The punishment remains the same, with imprisonment up to 7 years and a fine. The BNS is expected to handle cases involving theft by employees with a focus on the breach of trust, ensuring that such offences are dealt with sternly. The key difference is that the BNS includes clearer language while maintaining the same substantive law and penalties as the IPC.

Theft of Railway Property

IPC Section 379: While Section 379 generally covers theft, the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, specifically addresses theft of railway property. Under IPC, theft involving public property like railway property is prosecuted severely. The punishment under Section 379 includes imprisonment up to 3 years, or a fine, or both, while the Railway Property Act can extend to 5 years.

BNS Clause 154: The BNS incorporates provisions to specifically address theft of railway property, similar to the Railway Property Act but integrated within the broader framework of theft under the BNS. The punishment is consistent with the IPC and Railway Property Act, with imprisonment up to 5 years and a fine. The BNS’s comprehensive approach ensures that theft of public property, such as railway assets, is prosecuted with due seriousness. The key difference is that the BNS consolidates provisions related to the theft of railway property within its framework, ensuring a unified legal approach.

Extortion Related to Theft

IPC Section 384: This section deals with extortion, where a person intentionally puts another in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly induces the person to deliver any property or valuable security. The punishment includes imprisonment up to 3 years, or a fine, or both. In State of Maharashtra v. Krishna Murari (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 384 for extorting money through threats, illustrating the law’s application to coercive theft.

BNS Clause 160: The BNS retains the definition of extortion as in IPC Section 384, with refinements to ensure clarity and consistency in legal interpretation. The punishment remains consistent, with imprisonment up to 3 years, or a fine, or both. The BNS will continue to address extortion-related theft with a focus on protecting victims from coercive criminal activities. The key difference is that the BNS includes refined language but retains the same legal principles and penalties as the IPC.

Comparative Analysis of Offenses Related to Theft (IPC vs BNS)

Aspect	IPC Section	BNS Clause	Key Differences	Case Studies/Examples
Simple Theft	Section 378 & 379: Defines and punishes theft of movable property.	Clause 150: Similar definition with refined language.	Clearer language but retains the same legal framework and penalties.	State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale (2001): Conviction for motorcycle theft under Section 379.
Theft in Dwelling House, etc.	Section 380: Theft committed in a dwelling house, building, or vessel.	Clause 151: Mirrors IPC with linguistic clarity.	Language clarity, same substantive law and penalties.	Chandrapal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004): Conviction for theft in a house, illustrating the serious penalty under Section 380.
Theft by Clerk or Servant	Section 381: Theft by a clerk or servant from their employer.	Clause 152: Retains provisions with refined language.	Clearer language; substantive law and penalties unchanged.	State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2002): Conviction for theft by a servant, emphasising breach of trust.
Theft of Railway Property	Section 379 (general) & Railway Property Act: Theft involving railway property.	Clause 154: Incorporates railway theft provisions into the broader BNS framework.	Unified legal approach to theft of public property, including railway assets.	State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (2004): Conviction for theft of railway property.
Extortion Related to Theft	Section 384: Extortion through fear of injury leading to theft.	Clause 160: Retains provisions with refined language.	Refined language, same legal principles and penalties.	State of Maharashtra v. Krishna Murari (2003): Conviction for extortion under Section 384.

6. Offences Related to Homicide (IPC vs BNS)

Murder

IPC Section 302:

• Definition: Section 302 of the IPC deals with the offence of murder, defined as causing death with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Punishment: Death penalty or life imprisonment, and also liable to a fine.
• Case Study: Nirbhaya Case (2012): The brutal gang rape and murder case led to the death penalty being awarded under Section 302, emphasising the application of the maximum penalty for heinous crimes.

BNS Clause 101:

• Definition: The BNS mirrors the IPC’s definition of murder, maintaining the focus on intent and the severity of the act.
• Punishment: The punishment remains the same, with the death penalty or life imprisonment, and a fine.
• Example: The BNS is expected to apply similar stringent punishments for cases akin to the Nirbhaya case, ensuring that heinous murders continue to face the maximum penalties.

Key Difference: The BNS introduces clearer language but retains the core definition and punishments consistent with the IPC.

Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

IPC Section 304:

• Definition: Section 304 deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause death, but without the degree of premeditation required for murder.
• Punishment: Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to 10 years, and a fine.
• Case Study: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962): This famous case involved the killing of a man by a naval officer, with the court ultimately convicting him under Section 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

BNS Clause 102:

• Definition: The BNS retains the core distinction between murder and culpable homicide, focusing on intent and premeditation, with refined language for clarity.
• Punishment: The punishment remains consistent, with life imprisonment or up to 10 years, and a fine.
• Example: The BNS will likely handle similar cases with a focus on intent and the circumstances surrounding the act, maintaining the nuanced application of the law.

Key Difference: The BNS offers clearer language but maintains the substantive distinctions and penalties from the IPC.

Causing Death by Negligence

IPC Section 304A:

• Definition: Section 304A deals with causing death by negligence, where death is caused by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or with a fine, or both.
• Case Study: Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012): A hit-and-run case where the accused was convicted under Section 304A for causing the death of seven people due to negligent driving.

BNS Clause 103:

• Definition: The BNS retains the provisions for causing death by negligence, with clearer language to ensure the law’s precise application.
• Punishment: The punishment remains consistent with the IPC, with imprisonment up to 2 years, or with a fine, or both.
• Example: The BNS is expected to address cases of death caused by negligence with the same focus on accountability, ensuring that such acts are penalised appropriately.

Key Difference: The BNS includes more precise language but retains the same legal principles and penalties as the IPC.

Attempt to Murder

IPC Section 307:

• Definition: Section 307 pertains to attempts to murder, where an individual, with the intent to cause death, engages in an act that, if successful, would result in murder.
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years, or life imprisonment, and a fine.
• Case Study: Shiv Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. (2018): The accused attempted to kill the victim by stabbing, which was prosecuted under Section 307, highlighting the section’s applicability in cases where murder is attempted but not completed.

BNS Clause 109:

• Definition: The BNS maintains the same provisions as the IPC, with clearer language to enhance legal interpretation.
• Punishment: The punishment remains consistent with the IPC, with up to 10 years’ imprisonment, life imprisonment, and a fine.
• Example: The BNS is expected to address similar cases of attempted murder with a continued focus on intent and premeditation.

Key Difference: The BNS clarifies the legal language, but the substantive law and penalties remain the same.

Abetment of Suicide

IPC Section 306:

• Definition: Section 306 covers abetment of suicide, where a person encourages or assists another in committing suicide.
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years, and a fine.
• Case Study: Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): While primarily a case on euthanasia, it touched on the legality of abetment of suicide, distinguishing between euthanasia and assisted suicide under Indian law.

BNS Clause 110:

• Definition: The BNS retains the provisions related to the abetment of suicide, with refined language to provide clarity in legal interpretation.
• Punishment: The punishment is consistent with the IPC, with up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine.
• Example: The BNS will likely handle similar cases with a focus on the nuances of intent and encouragement behind suicide, ensuring justice for the victims.

Key Difference: The BNS introduces clearer language but retains the same substantive law and penalties.

Comparative Analysis of Offenses Related to Homicide (IPC vs BNS)

Aspect	IPC Section	BNS Clause	Key Differences	Case Studies/Examples
Murder	Section 302: Death penalty or life imprisonment for causing death with intent.	Clause 101: Mirrors IPC with clearer language.	Language refinement; core definitions and punishments remain.	Nirbhaya Case (2012): Application of the death penalty for heinous crimes.
Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder	Section 304: Distinguishes between murder and culpable homicide based on intent.	Clause 102: Retains distinction with refined language.	Clearer language; substantive law remains unchanged.	K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962): Conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Causing Death by Negligence	Section 304A: Causing death by rash or negligent act.	Clause 103: Retains provisions with clearer language.	More precise language; same legal principles and penalties.	Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012): Conviction for negligent driving causing multiple deaths.
Attempt to Murder	Section 307: Punishment for attempts to murder, with up to 10 years’ imprisonment or life.	Clause 109: Maintains the same provisions with clearer language.	Clarified language; substantive law and penalties remain.	Shiv Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. (2018): Prosecution for attempted murder.
Abetment of Suicide	Section 306: Punishes abetment of suicide, with up to 10 years’ imprisonment.	Clause 110: Retains provisions with refined language.	More precise language; legal principles and penalties unchanged.	Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): Discussion on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Conclusion

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 represents a transformative shift from the colonial-era Indian Penal Code to a modern and relevant legal framework. By addressing contemporary challenges, updating terminology, and incorporating progressive justice approaches, the BNS aligns with India’s evolving values and societal needs. 

As India moves forward with this significant reform, understanding these changes is crucial for legal professionals, policymakers, and the public alike. The BNS marks a new era in Indian criminal law, reflecting a commitment to justice, equity, and modernisation. 

Frequently Asked Questions of Comparison Between IPC Sections and BNS Clauses

Q1. What is the main difference between the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?

Ans1. The main difference between the IPC and BNS is that the BNS is a modernised version introduced in 2023 to replace the colonial-era IPC. While the IPC reflects outdated norms, the BNS is designed to align with contemporary values and address modern crimes like cybercrime and gender-based violence.

Q2. Why was the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduced?

Ans2. The BNS was introduced to decolonise and reform India’s legal system. It aims to modernise criminal laws, making them more relevant to today’s societal needs and values, and tackle offences that were not adequately covered under the IPC.

Q3. How does the definition of rape in the BNS differ from the IPC?

Ans3. The definition of rape in the BNS is largely similar to the IPC’s definition under Section 375, including the same exceptions such as marital rape not being recognised unless the wife is under 18. However, the BNS introduces minor language adjustments for clarity.

Q4. Are punishments for rape different under the BNS compared to the IPC?

Ans4. No, the punishments for rape under the BNS (Clause 64) are similar to those under the IPC (Section 376), with minimum sentences of 10 years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty in aggravated cases.

Q5. How do the IPC and BNS handle sexual harassment offences?

Ans5. Both the IPC (Section 354A) and BNS (Clause 69) address sexual harassment, but the BNS simplifies the language to make definitions clearer. The core aspects of the offence and punishments remain the same.

Q6. Does the BNS address cybercrime more effectively than the IPC?

Ans6. Yes, the BNS updates criminal offences to include modern crimes like cybercrime, which the IPC struggled to cover effectively. The BNS reflects a more contemporary approach to such issues.

Q7. What are the sentencing differences between the IPC and the BNS?

Ans7. The IPC primarily focuses on punitive measures with long incarcerations, while the BNS adopts a more balanced approach by incorporating both punitive and rehabilitative measures, such as community service and restorative justice.

Q8. How do the IPC and BNS address fraud-related offences?

Ans8. Both the IPC (Section 420) and BNS (Clause 315) address fraud, particularly cheating and dishonestly inducing property delivery. The BNS mirrors the IPC in punishment but uses clearer language for better understanding.

Q9. Are the principles of criminal liability different in the BNS compared to the IPC?

Ans9. No, the principles of criminal liability, such as mens rea (intent) and actus reus (action), remain the same in both the IPC and the BNS. The standards for determining liability are consistent across both codes.

Q10. How does the BNS improve procedural aspects of the justice system compared to the IPC?

Ans10. The BNS streamlines and modernises procedural laws to make the justice system more efficient and accessible, reducing delays and improving overall legal processes. In contrast, the IPC’s procedural framework is seen as more rigid and bureaucratic.