Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property
Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustrations.
(a) A, a police officer, tortures Z in order to induce Z to confess that he committed a crime. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(b) A, a police officer, tortures B to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A, a revenue officer, tortures Z in order to compel him to pay certain arrears of revenue due from Z. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(2) Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for any purpose referred to in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 120, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 330 Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property Text carried over almost unchanged 93%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or information, or to compel restoration of property, etc. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession or information, or to compel restoration of property, etc. | Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 330, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession; appellant was charged under this section
-
State of Orissa vs Sikhar Jena
Decided under Indian Penal Code 330, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court, particularly a High Court, when setting aside convictions and acquitting accused persons in serious criminal matters involving multiple deaths, must provide reasoned and detailed findings explaining why the trial court's conviction is being overturned. A mere assertion that a prosecution witness is not credible, without providing substantive reasons for discarding their evidence, does not constitute a valid basis for acquittal. The appellate court must deal comprehensively with the various points highlighted by both the prosecution and the defense before arriving at a conclusion, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and proper judicial procedure.
On this section: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety; read with Section 149
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 330, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by public servant; conviction confirmed for custodial torture
-
Vijay Kumar vs State Nct of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 330, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dying declaration recorded by a competent judicial officer (magistrate) at the instance of a medical expert who has certified the declarant's fitness to make a statement is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon for conviction, notwithstanding minor procedural defects in compliance with procedural guidelines (such as lack of signature or thumb impression), provided the substantive content of the declaration is proved to be truthful through adequate corroborative material evidence including oral testimony of responsible official witnesses and documentary/circumstantial evidence such as seizure memos, medical records, and independent witness accounts. The guidelines for recording dying declarations are meant to ensure genuineness and test veracity but are not binding preconditions to admissibility; trivial defects do not vitiate otherwise reliable dying declarations that form part of a cohesive web of circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or information. Applied to conviction of Vijay Kumar and Om Prakash for beating and torturing the deceased during illegal confinement.
-
Sanganagouda A. Veeranagouda vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 330, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A police officer who makes an arrest without warrant is directly duty-bound under CrPC Section 56 to produce the arrested person before the nearest magistrate without unnecessary delay and within 24 hours excluding transport time. This duty vests in the arresting officer personally and does not depend on whether he is the investigating officer or on any written authorization from the investigating officer. Failure to produce the arrested person within 24 hours, resulting in unlawful detention, constitutes wrongful confinement punishable under IPC Section 348, regardless of whether the investigating officer bore broader investigative authority.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or information - applied against appellants for causing physical injuries to Guddappa during custody
-
Manish vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 330, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, witness demeanor must be observed during examination. The trial court cannot delegate the recording of witness statements to a Local Commissioner as this violates Section 275 Cr.P.C. and deprives the court of the opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The appellate court has the power to remit a case to the trial court for limited purpose of recording evidence afresh to ensure procedural correctness and eliminate technical errors.
On this section: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or information - conviction section
-
Ajjamada Katti Mandaiah vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 330, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings initiated against public servants for acts done in discharge of official duty without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC are illegal and liable to be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. However, private citizens acting as moral police without official authority are not entitled to the protection of Section 197 CrPC and must face criminal proceedings if prima facie case is made out.
On this section: Punishment for causing hurt to extort confession or information
-
Aftab S/o Shri Abdul Kalam vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 330, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with serious offences like attempted murder but the actual injury caused is simple in nature, and the investigation has been completed with challan filed, bail may be granted by the High Court under Section 439 CrPC, particularly when the accused has already undergone substantial custody, provided the trial court is satisfied with bail conditions.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property; mentioned as alternate charge in the petition
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 120
What have the courts held on Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 330, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession; appellant was charged under this section. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2024.
Is Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, on a first conviction, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This section is classified 2 ways; all of them are set out on this page.
Is Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 120, section 120 BNS, section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 120b in hindi and bns 120 2 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024).
What should I read with Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 330 (Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 120, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.