Section 357 punishes a person who is bound by a lawful contract to attend on, or to supply the wants of, someone who is helpless or unable to look after his own safety or needs because of youth, unsoundness of mind, disease or bodily weakness, and who voluntarily fails to do so. The punishment is imprisonment of up to three months, or a fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both. Compared with IPC Section 491, the only change is the fine ceiling, raised from two hundred rupees.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 357 is classed as Substantively changed — it descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the punishment wording differs. (The concordance carries no Change marker against this section; the category shown here rests on Lexovia's own comparison of the two texts.)
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 357 | S.491 “Breach of contract to attend on and supply wants of helpless person” | Substantively changed |
A word-by-word comparison of BNS Section 357 with IPC Section 491 shows exactly one difference: the ceiling on the fine, which is “two hundred rupees” in IPC Section 491 and “five thousand rupees” in BNS Section 357. The description of the offence, the imprisonment limit (imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months) and the marginal heading are word-for-word the same in both Acts.
Whoever, being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or to supply the wants of any person who, by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness, is helpless or incapable of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants, voluntarily omits so to do, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 357 makes it an offence to fail to perform a specific kind of contractual duty to look after another person. It has three ingredients. First, the offender must be “bound by a lawful contract to attend on or to supply the wants of” a person — the two duties are alternatives, so a contract to attend on the person, or a contract to supply the person's wants, is enough. The source of the duty named in the section is a lawful contract; the section does not, in its words, extend to a person who has no such contract. Nor does it say that the contract must be with the helpless person himself: it speaks of a contract binding the offender to attend on or supply the wants of “any person” of the described kind. (The BNSS compounding table likewise refers to the person “with whom the offender has contracted,” not to the helpless person.)
Second, the person served must be one who, “by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness,” is “helpless or incapable of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants.” There are two layers: a cause (youth, unsoundness of mind, a disease, or bodily weakness) and a resulting condition (helpless, or incapable of providing for his own safety, or incapable of supplying his own wants). Section 2 of the Sanhita does not define “youth” or “unsoundness of mind.” It defines “child” in clause 2(3) as any person below the age of eighteen years, but that is a different word and Section 357 does not use it.
Third, the offender must “voluntarily omit so to do.” “Voluntarily” is defined in Section 2(33): a person causes an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing them, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it; and Section 2(25) provides that “omission” denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission. The section punishes the omission itself; its words do not make it an ingredient that any particular harm results from it. The word “voluntarily” must be satisfied in the sense of Section 2(33) for the offence to be made out.
On punishment and procedure: imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous — Section 4(c)) for up to three months, or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or both. Under the BNSS First Schedule the offence is non-cognizable (a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant — BNSS Section 2(1)(o)), bailable, and triable by any Magistrate (which, per the Schedule's own explanatory note, does not include Executive Magistrates). For a bailable offence, BNSS Section 478(1) is the relevant bail provision. It provides that a person other than one accused of a non-bailable offence, who is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or who appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared to give bail, “shall be released on bail,” subject to its provisos. In the first compounding table of BNSS Section 359(1) this section is listed under the description “Criminal breach of contract of service,” and it may be compounded, without the court's permission, by the person with whom the offender has contracted.
Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which may extend to three months, or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or both.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is non-cognizable and bailable, and triable by any Magistrate.
In BNSS Section 359(1) the offence appears under the description “Criminal breach of contract of service,” and the person who may compound it is the person with whom the offender has contracted. The court’s permission is not required for offences in that first table.
The section punishes a person who, being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or supply the wants of a helpless person, voluntarily omits to do so. Its words do not list any resulting harm as an ingredient.
The section speaks of a person “bound by a lawful contract.” On its words, the duty it deals with is one created by a lawful contract.
Yes, in the fine only: the ceiling has risen from two hundred rupees to five thousand rupees. The description of the offence and the three-month imprisonment limit are word-for-word the same.