Section 74 opens a new sub-topic within Chapter V (Of Criminal Force and Assault Against Woman) and punishes whoever assaults or uses criminal force against any woman, intending to outrage her modesty, or knowing it likely that his act will outrage her modesty. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term of not less than one year but which may extend to five years, and fine.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 74 to old IPC Section 354, and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. The operative ingredients of the offence are reproduced word for word — an assault or use of criminal force to a woman, intending to outrage or knowing it likely that her modesty will thereby be outraged — but the punishment differs substantially.
| BNS 74 | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 74 | 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) | Substantively changed |
Comparing the punishment clauses directly: old IPC Section 354 provided imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both — an entirely optional, alternative structure with no stated minimum term and no requirement that both imprisonment and fine be imposed together. BNS Section 74 instead requires imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and fine — a mandatory minimum term more than double the old maximum, a maximum raised from two years to five, and fine made mandatory in addition to imprisonment rather than an alternative to it.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 74 requires two ingredients together: an assault or use of criminal force against a woman, and a particular mental element attached to it — either an actual intention to outrage her modesty, or knowledge that the act is likely to have that effect, even without a specific intention to that end. The second limb is important: a person cannot escape liability merely by denying any specific intention to outrage the woman's modesty, if he knew his conduct was likely to have that effect regardless. The section does not itself define "modesty," leaving that assessment to the facts of each case, but it is understood to protect a woman's sense of decency and dignity from acts that a reasonable person would recognise as an affront to it. This section is distinct from, and less severe than, the more serious sexual offences addressed earlier in this Chapter (Sections 63 to 71) — it applies to conduct that falls short of those offences but still amounts to an assault or use of criminal force directed at a woman's modesty.
These judgment(s) relate to Section 74 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
A senior IPS officer (then Director General of Police, Punjab) slapped a woman IAS officer on the posterior at a dinner party attended by the elite of the local administration. It was argued in his defence that, even assuming the act occurred, the culpable intention required for outraging modesty was lacking. The Supreme Court rejected this: intention or knowledge, being states of mind, may be inferred from the attending circumstances, and here the act was the culmination of earlier overtures, committed openly before a gathering of the accused's peers — there was nothing to suggest it was accidental or a slip. The Court held the same conduct separately made out an offence of insulting modesty by word/gesture as well, but the assault/criminal-force limb is the one reproduced here. The case is a leading authority that a public official's rank and office are no shield against a modesty-outraging charge, and that a single act, without repetition, is sufficient.
Currency check: decided October 1995; applies directly to BNS Section 74 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), which reproduces old IPC Section 354 essentially verbatim; no overruling found in this review. The same judgment is filed separately at BNS Section 126 (wrongful restraint) for a different, unrelated holding in the same case — see that page for the restraint-specific point.
No. The section is satisfied by either an actual intention to outrage her modesty, or knowledge that the act is likely to have that effect — either mental state suffices on its own.
Yes. The section states a mandatory minimum of one year's imprisonment, extendable to five years, with fine also mandatory — unlike the old IPC provision, which allowed a court to impose only a fine with no imprisonment at all.
Section 74 applies to an assault or use of criminal force intended or known to be likely to outrage a woman's modesty, without requiring the specific acts that constitute rape or the other offences defined in Sections 63 to 71; where those more serious offences are made out, they apply instead.