Section 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Assault or Criminal Force to a Woman with Intent to Disrobe
By Advocate Avichal Pandey, Allahabad High Court
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) contains specific provisions dealing with offences against women. Among these, Section 76 BNS addresses a particularly serious form of assault or criminal force where the accused acts with the intention of disrobing a woman or compelling her to be naked.
Section 76 BNS came into force on 1 July 2024 and substantially corresponds to the offence that was earlier dealt with under Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
What does Section 76 BNS provide?
Section 76 states that whoever:-
●assaults a woman; or
●uses criminal force against a woman; or
●abets such an act,
with the intention of disrobing her or compelling her to be naked, commits an offence punishable under Section 76 BNS.
The statutory punishment is imprisonment of either description for a minimum of three years and up to seven years, along with fine.
The provision therefore focuses not merely on physical contact or assault, but particularly on the intention behind the conduct.
Essential Ingredients of Section 76 BNS
For an allegation under Section 76 to be established, the prosecution would ordinarily have to establish the relevant ingredients of the offence.
1. The victim must be a woman
The provision specifically applies where the person subjected to the assault or criminal force is a woman.
2. There must be assault or criminal force
The conduct must involve either assault or use of criminal force against the woman.
The exact nature of the physical conduct and the surrounding circumstances will be important in determining whether this ingredient is satisfied.
3. Intention to disrobe or compel nakedness
This is a particularly important component of Section 76.
The prosecution has to establish that the conduct was accompanied by the requisite intention to disrobe the woman or compel her to be naked. The intention may be examined from the conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances.
4. Abetment is expressly covered
Section 76 does not restrict liability to the person who physically assaults the woman. It also expressly covers a person who abets such an act.
Consequently, where one person intentionally assists another in an act falling within Section 76, the question of liability of the assisting person can arise on the facts and evidence.
Punishment under Section 76 BNS
Section 76 provides:-
●Minimum punishment: 3 years' imprisonment
●Maximum punishment: 7 years' imprisonment
Fine: Also imposable
The imprisonment may be simple or rigorous, since the statutory language uses "imprisonment of either description."
The minimum sentence of three years is significant because the court does not have unlimited discretion to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum.
Is Section 76 BNS Cognizable and Non-Bailable?
Yes.
Under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), an offence under Section 76 BNS is classified as:-
Classification Position
●Nature of offence - Cognizable
●Bail - Non-bailable
●Trial - Court of Session
●Punishment - 3–7 years and fine
The First Schedule specifically records Section 76 as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session.
Important correction to the infographic
The supplied infographic states that Section 76 is "triable by Magistrate of First Class." That portion is not correct. The current BNSS First Schedule specifies Court of Session as the trial court for Section 76 BNS.
What is the importance of "intent" under Section 76?
The word "intention" is central to this provision.
For example, consider two situations:
Example 1 — Forcefully attempting to remove clothing
A physically assaults a woman and attempts to tear or remove her clothes with the intention of making her naked.
Depending upon the evidence establishing the requisite intention and conduct, such facts can attract Section 76 BNS even if the accused does not ultimately succeed in completely removing the woman's clothing.
Example 2 — Threatening a woman to undress
A threatens a woman with physical harm and uses force with the intention of compelling her to remove her clothes.
Such conduct may fall within the language of Section 76 if the statutory ingredients are established.
The precise offence in any individual case, however, depends upon the allegations in the FIR, evidence collected during investigation, medical and other evidence where relevant, witness testimony, and the surrounding circumstances.
Physical Removal of Clothing Is Not the Only Relevant Consideration
An important feature of Section 76 is that the statutory language refers to the intention of disrobing or compelling the woman to be naked.
Therefore, the prosecution case need not necessarily depend upon the accused having successfully completely removed the victim's clothing.
The court would examine the actual conduct and the intention accompanying it.
This makes the factual circumstances particularly important in cases involving Section 76 BNS.
Liability of More Than One Person
Section 76 expressly includes abetment.
Suppose, for illustration, that:-
●Person A restrains a woman;
●Person B attempts to remove her clothing; and
●both persons are acting pursuant to a common plan to disrobe her.
The liability of each person would depend upon the evidence establishing their respective roles and the requirements of abetment and other applicable provisions.
Thus, the person who physically removes or attempts to remove clothing is not necessarily the only person whose criminal liability may be examined.
Section 76 BNS and Section 74 BNS: Important Difference
Section 74 BNS deals with assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
Section 76, on the other hand, specifically addresses assault or criminal force with the intention of disrobing or compelling the woman to be naked.
The two provisions therefore address different statutory circumstances, although a particular factual incident may give rise to consideration of more than one provision depending upon the allegations and evidence.
Section 76 BNS and the Earlier IPC Section 354B
Before the BNS came into force, Section 354B IPC dealt with assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe.
The corresponding provision under the new criminal law is Section 76 BNS. Comparative statutory material identifies BNS Section 76 with IPC Section 354B.
For incidents governed by the new criminal law regime, Section 76 BNS is therefore the relevant provision.
The date of the alleged occurrence is important when determining whether the IPC or BNS applies, having regard to the statutory repeal-and-savings provisions.
Bail Considerations in a Section 76 Case
Since Section 76 is classified as non-bailable, bail is not an automatic entitlement.
However, "non-bailable" does not mean that bail is legally impossible. An accused may seek bail from the competent court, and the court considers the case in accordance with the applicable bail provisions and the facts of the particular matter.
Relevant considerations can include:-
●the specific allegations;
●the nature of the alleged assault;
●the material collected during investigation;
●the alleged intention;
●the role attributed to each accused;
●statements of witnesses;
●medical or other corroborative evidence, where applicable;
●whether custodial interrogation is required;
●possibility of influencing witnesses;
●possibility of tampering with evidence; and
●other circumstances recognised under the applicable law.
Each bail application must therefore be assessed on its own facts.
Role of the FIR and Investigation
Because the offence is cognizable, the police can investigate the case in accordance with the BNSS.
The FIR should be examined carefully to determine:-
1. what specific conduct is alleged;
2. against whom it is alleged;
3. what intention is attributed to the accused;
4. whether there is an allegation of disrobing or compelling nakedness;
5. what role is attributed to each accused; and
6. whether other offences have also been invoked.
During investigation, the prosecution may collect statements, electronic evidence, medical material where relevant, photographs or videos, and other evidence depending upon the circumstances.
Defence Perspective in a Section 76 Case
In a criminal case, the mere invocation of a penal provision does not by itself establish guilt. The prosecution must prove the ingredients of the alleged offence in accordance with law.
From the defence perspective, the following factual questions may become important:-
●Was there actually an assault or use of criminal force?
●What precisely was the accused alleged to have done?
●Is the requisite intention to disrobe specifically supported by the evidence?
●Are the allegations consistent with the contemporaneous evidence?
●What was the individual role of each accused?
●Is there independent or electronic evidence supporting the prosecution version?
●Are there material contradictions or omissions?
●Are other provisions being invoked on facts that actually satisfy their statutory ingredients?
These are matters for legal assessment based on the complete record rather than merely the wording of the FIR.
Conclusion
Section 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 creates a specific offence concerning assault or criminal force against a woman where the accused acts with the intention of disrobing her or compelling her to be naked.
The provision carries a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of seven years, along with fine, and the offence is cognizable and non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session.
The most important aspects of a Section 76 case are therefore the nature of the physical conduct, the intention attributed to the accused, the individual role of each person involved, and the evidence supporting those allegations.
For advocates handling such matters, careful examination of the FIR, case diary, witness statements, medical/electronic evidence and the precise statutory ingredients is essential before advising on investigation, bail, discharge or trial strategy.
---
About the Author
Advocate Avichal Pandey is a practicing counsel before the Allahabad High Court
This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes and should not be treated as a substitute for case-specific legal advice.
Post a Comment