The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is gone. In its place since July 1, 2024 is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — Act 45 of 2023. 164 years of Indian criminal jurisprudence, built section by section on IPC provisions, now requires translation into a new numbering system — and in several cases, a new legal framework entirely.
Some changes are cosmetic renumbering. Others are structural: new offences, deleted offences, enhanced punishments, and provisions that will generate years of fresh litigation before the courts settle what they mean.
This post maps the provisions you will encounter most in practice. It tells you what changed substantively, what the change means for your arguments, and how to handle the enormous body of pre-2024 case law that was built on sections that no longer exist.
What Changed on July 1, 2024
The BNS came into force on July 1, 2024, replacing the IPC. The transition rule in Section 531 BNSS (the procedural companion) provides that offences committed before July 1, 2024 continue to be charged under the IPC. Offences committed after July 1, 2024 are charged under BNS.
This means courts are simultaneously operating under both codes — pre-July offences under IPC, post-July offences under BNS. A Sessions Court trying a murder committed in 2022 applies IPC Section 302. The same court trying a murder committed in August 2024 applies BNS Section 103. Every piece of case law on murder, rape, theft, and sedition must now be indexed to the correct code.
The Allahabad HC in State v. Arvind Kumar (September 2024) confirmed the governing framework: (1) for offences committed before July 1, 2024 — charge under IPC, try under IPC; (2) for offences committed after July 1, 2024 — charge under BNS; (3) for trials where offences straddle the date — each offence charged under the law in force when it was committed. A single chargesheet may now cite both IPC and BNS sections for different counts.
General Changes Across the BNS
Before the section-by-section mapping, three structural changes apply across the entire BNS and affect how you read every provision.
Community service as punishment. BNS introduces community service for the first time in Indian penal law — available for petty theft (first conviction), defamation, attempt to commit suicide, misconduct in public by a drunk person, public nuisance, and failure to appear in court. This is a new category of punishment alongside imprisonment, fine, and forfeiture, and there is no established sentencing framework for it yet.
Organised crime — new definition. BNS Section 111 defines organised crime for the first time in the general penal code (it previously existed only in state laws like MCOCA). The definition is broad: a continuing unlawful activity by a criminal syndicate, whether or not the accused belongs to a specific organised crime group. The economic offences provision at BNS 111(1)(f) has attracted the most litigation — its scope relative to Prevention of Money Laundering Act is unresolved.
Terrorist act — in the general penal code. BNS Section 113 introduces a definition of terrorist act into the IPC's successor. Critically, the provision does not override the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act — UAPA remains the primary framework for terrorism prosecution, and BNS 113 appears to target non-UAPA situations. The relationship between these two frameworks has not been definitively settled.
The 28 Most Important IPC Sections: What They Map To
Offences Against the State
IPC 121 → BNS 147
Waging war against the Government of India. Verbatim identical. All case law applies.
IPC 124A → BNS 152 (CONTESTED)
This is the most legally significant and contested mapping in the entire BNS. IPC 124A (sedition) was effectively suspended by the Supreme Court in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) while the Union conducted a review. The government promised to reconsider the provision.
BNS 152 is not a simple replacement. It creates a new offence: "acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" — punishable with imprisonment for life or 7 years plus fine. The elements are different from sedition: the focus shifts from exciting disaffection toward the government to endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The requirement of "disaffection" disappears. Exciting "subversive activities," "separatist feelings," or undermining India's sovereignty explicitly covers online conduct.
The critical question — whether BNS 152 continues the Kedar Nath Singh limitation that legitimate criticism of the government is not an offence — is unsettled. The provision's text does not contain the Kedar Nath Singh safety valve. Multiple FIRs have already been filed under BNS 152. Constitutional validity challenges are pending before the SC.
BNS 152 is marked contested in this mapping. Do not treat Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) AIR SC 955 as directly applicable to BNS 152 until the SC rules on whether the Kedar Nath safeguards survive. The provision has a different structure from IPC 124A and may be interpreted without the sedition-era limitations.
Offences Against the Human Body
IPC 302 → BNS 103
Murder. The basic structure (murder, culpable homicide, and the distinction between them) is unchanged. But BNS 103(2) adds an entirely new category: murder by five or more persons acting in concert on the grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief (mob lynching as aggravated murder).
This category carries the same punishment as ordinary murder (death or life imprisonment) but creates group liability — every member of the five-or-more group who commits murder in concert is guilty under BNS 103(2) regardless of who struck the actual blow. This is a significant expansion of individual criminal liability and has no direct IPC equivalent.
The SC in Tahseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) gave directions on lynching as a law and order concern; BNS 103(2) now creates the substantive offence. This provision is likely to generate substantial litigation on what constitutes "acting in concert" and whether group membership alone creates liability.
IPC 304 → BNS 105
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The punishment change is critical: punishment under Part II (culpable homicide without intent) is increased from 10 years to life imprisonment as the maximum. The minimum sentence remains unchanged. For accused currently charged with IPC 304 Part II offences committed before July 2024, the IPC maximum of 10 years applies. For post-July offences, the prosecution may argue for life.
IPC 307 → BNS 109
Attempt to murder. Identical in structure. BNS 109 adds that the attempt offence may now specifically be tried under the trial in absentia provision (BNSS 356) where the accused has absconded.
IPC 309 — DELETED in BNS
Attempt to commit suicide is no longer a cognizable penal offence in the BNS. This aligns the criminal law with Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which already effectively decriminalised the act by requiring medical treatment rather than prosecution. There is no BNS equivalent. Prosecutions pending under IPC 309 as of July 1, 2024 continue under IPC per the transition rule.
IPC 304A → BNS 106
Causing death by negligence. Two significant changes. First: the offence is now sub-divided — BNS 106(1) covers ordinary negligent death (still 2-year maximum); BNS 106(2) creates a new aggravated form specifically for road accidents where the driver flees the scene — punishable with up to 10 years and fine. The "hit and flee" provision directly targets road accident deaths, which were inadequately addressed under IPC 304A.
Second: doctors are expressly protected from the aggravated 106(2) provision — medical negligence causing death remains under the 106(1) maximum of 2 years. This is a legislative resolution of the tension in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), where the SC laid down the criminal negligence standard for medical professionals.
IPC 304B → BNS 80
Dowry death. Verbatim identical with cross-reference updated to BNS 85/86 (the BNS equivalent of IPC 498A). All case law on dowry death — the presumption under IEA 113B (now BSA 118), the 7-year window, the "soon before death" standard — applies unchanged.
IPC 323 → BNS 115(2)
Voluntarily causing hurt. The BNS collapses several IPC hurt provisions and adds community service as an available punishment for minor hurt offences.
IPC 324 → BNS 117(2)
Hurt by dangerous weapons. Identical in substance.
IPC 325 → BNS 117(1)
Grievous hurt. Structurally identical. Some secondary sources have mapped IPC 325 to BNS 118 — this is incorrect. The correct mapping confirmed by the official gazette and BPRD comparison table is BNS 117(1). Verify before citing.
IPC 354 → BNS 74
Assault with intent to outrage modesty. The punishment minimum is increased from simple imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment of 1 year. The maximum (5 years) is unchanged.
IPC 354A → BNS 75
Sexual harassment. Structurally identical. The POSH Act framework remains unchanged.
IPC 354D → BNS 78
Stalking. Structurally identical. Cross-reference updated to BNS sections.
Rape and Sexual Offences
IPC 375 / 376 → BNS 63 / 64 (with significant expansions)
The definition of rape in BNS 63 is expanded in two ways. First, the list of sexual acts constituting rape is broader. Second, and more consequentially, BNS Section 69 creates an entirely new offence with no IPC equivalent: sexual intercourse by false promise of marriage or employment or promotion — punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment. This provision has already generated significant litigation on whether it criminalises breach of promise (a civil matter) or only deception from the outset. The provision makes "deceitful means" a necessary element.
BNS 64(2) lists the aggravated rape categories — broadly equivalent to IPC 376(2) — with cross-references updated throughout.
IPC 376A → BNS 66
Rape causing death or persistent vegetative state. Verbatim identical.
IPC 376AB → BNS 65(1)
Rape of woman under 12 years. Verbatim identical.
IPC 376B → BNS 67
Sexual intercourse by husband with wife during separation. Verbatim identical.
IPC 376C → BNS 68
Sexual intercourse by person in authority. Verbatim identical.
IPC 376D → BNS 70
Gang rape. Verbatim identical. Cross-references updated.
IPC 376DA → BNS 70(2)
Gang rape of woman under 16 years. Verbatim identical.
IPC 376E → BNS 71
Punishment for repeat offenders. Verbatim identical.
Theft, Robbery, and Property
IPC 378 → BNS 303(2)
Theft. Identical in substance. BNS adds community service as an available punishment for first-time petty theft convictions.
IPC 384 → BNS 308(2)
Extortion. Identical in substance.
IPC 390 → BNS 309(1)
Robbery. Identical in structure.
IPC 392 → BNS 309(3)
Punishment for robbery. The cross-references are updated.
IPC 395 → BNS 310(2)
Dacoity. Identical in substance.
IPC 406 → BNS 316(2)
Criminal breach of trust. The punishment maximum is increased from 3 years to 5 years. This is a significant enhancement affecting bail eligibility — breach of trust offences are now in the 5-year category, which affects BNSS 480(1) bail considerations.
IPC 420 → BNS 318(4)
Cheating and inducing delivery of property. The maximum punishment is increased from 7 to 10 years. This affects bail eligibility, anticipatory bail, and the 90-day versus 60-day default bail threshold under BNSS 187.
Offences Relating to Documents and Marriage
IPC 377 — DELETED in BNS
Section 377 (unnatural offences) is not reproduced in the BNS. Post the SC's reading-down in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, consensual adult sexual acts between same-sex persons are decriminalised. The residual non-consensual scope of IPC 377 (non-consensual acts against adults and acts against minors) is now addressed through BNS rape provisions and POCSO, which apply regardless of the sex of the victim or perpetrator. Pending IPC 377 prosecutions for pre-July 2024 acts continue under IPC.
IPC 494 → BNS 82
Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife (bigamy). Identical in substance.
IPC 498A → BNS 85 / 86
Cruelty by husband or relatives. The definition of cruelty is identical. What changes: BNS 86 expressly creates cruelty by demanding property or valuable security from the woman or her relatives as a defined aggravated form. The connection to dowry death and domestic violence civil law is made more explicit. All case law on IPC 498A — including Arnesh Kumar, Preeti Gupta, Rajesh Sharma — applies to BNS 85/86.
Public Order and Miscellaneous
IPC 505 → BNS 197 (with significant expansion)
Statements conducing to public mischief. BNS 197(1) expands the scope significantly: it covers statements, rumours, or reports made "whether by words spoken or written, by signs, or by visible representations or through electronic means or media." The online dimension is explicit. BNS 197(3) creates a specific offence for conducting public religious ceremonies with intent to promote enmity between different groups — a new provision with no direct IPC equivalent.
Quick Reference Mapping Table
| IPC Section | Subject | BNS Section | Change Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 121 | Waging war | 147 | Identical |
| 124A | Sedition | 152 | Structural — contested |
| 302 | Murder | 103(1) | Significant — mob lynching added at 103(2) |
| 304 | Culpable homicide | 105 | Significant — enhanced max punishment |
| 304A | Negligent death | 106 | Significant — hit-and-flee aggravation |
| 304B | Dowry death | 80 | Identical |
| 307 | Attempt to murder | 109 | Minor |
| 309 | Attempt to suicide | DELETED | Structural — no BNS equivalent |
| 323 | Voluntarily causing hurt | 115(2) | Minor |
| 325 | Grievous hurt | 117(1) | Identical |
| 354 | Assault on modesty | 74 | Significant — RI minimum added |
| 354A | Sexual harassment | 75 | Identical |
| 354D | Stalking | 78 | Identical |
| 375/376 | Rape / punishment | 63/64 | Significant — §69 deceptive intercourse added |
| 376A | Rape causing death | 66 | Identical |
| 376D | Gang rape | 70 | Identical |
| 376E | Repeat offenders | 71 | Identical |
| 378 | Theft | 303(2) | Minor — community service added |
| 384 | Extortion | 308(2) | Identical |
| 406 | Criminal breach of trust | 316(2) | Significant — max 3yr → 5yr |
| 420 | Cheating | 318(4) | Significant — max 7yr → 10yr |
| 377 | Unnatural offences | DELETED | Structural — no BNS equivalent |
| 494 | Bigamy | 82 | Identical |
| 498A | Cruelty by husband | 85/86 | Significant — property demand aggravation |
| 505 | Public mischief | 197 | Significant — online speech added |
| — | Organised crime | 111 | New — no IPC equivalent |
| — | Terrorist act | 113 | New — no IPC equivalent |
| — | Deceptive intercourse | 69 | New — no IPC equivalent |
How to Cite IPC Case Law in BNS-Era Proceedings
For verbatim identical provisions: cite the IPC case law directly. State the BNS equivalent in the submission. No qualification needed.
For substantively identical provisions with different section numbers: cite as "In [Case], this Court held [ratio] under IPC [Section], the equivalent of which is BNS [Section], with no material change to the provision." Courts are accepting this formulation.
For provisions with substantive changes: cite the IPC case law for the elements that are unchanged; explicitly flag where the BNS diverges. Do not cite IPC case law for the new elements without qualification.
For deleted provisions (IPC 309, IPC 377): IPC case law on those provisions applies to pending pre-July 2024 prosecutions under IPC. For post-July situations, the deleted offences are not prosecutable. Pending prosecutions under IPC 309 and IPC 377 continue under IPC per the transition rule.
For BNS 152 (formerly sedition): exercise extreme caution. The Kedar Nath Singh framework that protected legitimate political criticism is not textually reproduced in BNS 152. Arguing Kedar Nath Singh limitations before a court interpreting BNS 152 requires careful framing — acknowledge that BNS 152 has a different textual basis while arguing the constitutional protection under Article 19 continues to limit its scope.
In a post-July 2024 bail application for a BNS 103 (murder) case: You want to rely on the ratio in State v. Joginder Singh, (2016) 10 SCC 329 on the circumstances warranting bail in murder cases. That case was decided under IPC 302. The mapping is direct — BNS 103(1) is substantively identical to IPC 302 for ordinary murder. Cite the case. Note in your submissions: "The ratio of this Court in State v. Joginder Singh, decided under IPC Section 302 (the equivalent of BNS Section 103(1)), applies with full force to the present matter."
Research smarter, not harder
Get structured analysis of any judgment in under 45 seconds. No more manual briefing.
The Five New BNS Offences You Must Know
The BNS does not merely renumber the IPC — it creates five offences with no IPC equivalent that will increasingly generate litigation.
BNS 69 — Deceptive intercourse. Sexual intercourse by false promise of marriage or employment or promotion. Punishable with up to 10 years. The key element is deception "from the outset" — the provision targets fraudulent intent at the time of the promise, not subsequent breach. Courts are already grappling with distinguishing genuine broken engagements from criminal deception. The Punjab and Haryana HC and Delhi HC have given conflicting signals on the mens rea standard.
BNS 103(2) — Mob lynching as aggravated murder. Murder by five or more persons in concert on identity-based grounds. The group liability question — whether membership in the group without directly committing violence is sufficient — is unsettled. Expect this to reach the SC for constitutional interpretation.
BNS 111 — Organised crime. The definition is broader than MCOCA and similar state laws. The overlap with PMLA and UAPA creates jurisdictional complexity. Which agency investigates? Which court tries? Which law governs if multiple agencies are involved? None of this is settled.
BNS 113 — Terrorist act. Distinct from UAPA's terrorism provisions. The relationship is unclear — can a person be charged under both? Does BNS 113 require the same intent elements as UAPA? These questions will take years to settle.
BNS 197(3) — Religious ceremony enmity. Conducting public religious ceremonies to promote enmity between religious groups. This provision is broader than IPC 153A. Expect early constitutional challenges on Article 25 (freedom of religion) grounds.
Community Service — What It Means in Practice
Community service is available for six BNS offences: petty theft (first conviction, BNS 303), defamation (BNS 356(2)), attempt to commit suicide (BNS 226), misconduct in public by a drunk person (BNS 355), public nuisance (BNS 290/291), and failure to appear in court.
No framework yet exists for implementing community service sentences. Which organisations supervise? What constitutes adequate completion? What happens on non-compliance? The gaps are significant, and until rules are framed under BNS, courts are improvising. In practice, community service orders are being structured through court-monitored arrangements with hospitals, NGOs, and municipal bodies. The lack of a uniform framework creates disparity.
The IPC-to-BNS transition is not a simple renumbering exercise. Three provisions require special caution: BNS 152 (formerly sedition — the Kedar Nath Singh limitations do not textually survive, and constitutional validity is contested); BNS 103(2) (mob lynching — new offence, group liability untested); and BNS 69 (deceptive intercourse — the boundary between civil breach and criminal deception is unsettled). For the vast majority of IPC sections, the case law built over 164 years applies directly to their BNS equivalents. The mapping table above tells you which provisions require caution and which can be cited without qualification.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are IPC offences now charged under BNS?
It depends on when the offence was committed. Offences committed before July 1, 2024 are charged and tried under IPC. Offences committed on or after July 1, 2024 are charged and tried under BNS. This rule applies regardless of when the FIR was filed or when the chargesheet was submitted.
Is IPC 498A still valid?
IPC 498A continues to apply to offences committed before July 1, 2024. For cruelty offences committed after July 1, 2024, the applicable sections are BNS 85 and BNS 86. The substantive elements are identical. All case law on IPC 498A — including Arnesh Kumar on arrest procedure and Preeti Gupta on misuse — applies to BNS 85/86 proceedings.
What happened to sedition under BNS?
IPC 124A (sedition) is not reproduced in the BNS. In its place is BNS 152 — "acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India." This is a different offence with different elements. The Kedar Nath Singh limitation that protected legitimate political criticism is not textually present in BNS 152. Constitutional challenges to BNS 152 are pending before the Supreme Court.
Is IPC 377 still in force?
IPC 377 was not reproduced in the BNS. Consensual adult same-sex conduct was decriminalised by the SC in Navtej Singh Johar (2018). The remaining scope of IPC 377 (non-consensual acts) is now covered by BNS rape and POCSO provisions. Pending prosecutions under IPC 377 for pre-July 2024 acts continue under IPC.
How does the enhanced punishment for IPC 420 (now BNS 318(4)) affect bail?
IPC 420 carried a maximum of 7 years. BNS 318(4) carries a maximum of 10 years. This moves post-July 2024 cheating offences from the 60-day default bail category into the 90-day category under BNSS 187. For pre-July 2024 offences under IPC 420, the 60-day rule applies. This is a practical distinction in every cheating case.
What is BNS Section 69 and how does it differ from rape?
BNS 69 criminalises sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means — including false promise of marriage or employment. The critical distinction from rape (BNS 63) is that BNS 69 requires proof of consensual intercourse procured through deception, not forcible intercourse. The consent element distinguishes it from rape. The courts are developing the standard for what constitutes criminal deception versus broken promise — early decisions from the Punjab and Haryana HC and the Delhi HC have set conflicting thresholds.
Can a single FIR now cite both IPC and BNS sections?
Yes. Where a case involves multiple offences committed across the July 1, 2024 date, the chargesheet will cite IPC sections for pre-July acts and BNS sections for post-July acts. Multiple High Courts have confirmed this is proper procedure. The trial court applies the law applicable to each offence on its date of commission.