Criminal force
Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with criminal force. Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force i The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
Illustrations.
(a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the motion is produced without any other action on any person’s part. A has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely that this use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force to Z.
(b) Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z’s horses, and thereby causes them to quicken their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to change their motion. A has therefore used force to Z; and if A has done this without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has used criminal force to Z.
(c) Z is riding in a palanquin. A, intending to rob Z, seizes the pole and stops the palanquin. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by his own bodily power. A has therefore used force to Z; and as A has acted thus intentionally, without Z’s consent, in order to the commission of an offence. A has used criminal force to Z.
(d) A intentionally pushes against Z in the street. Here A has by his own bodily power moved his own person so as to bring it into contact with Z. He has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z.
(e) A throws a stone, intending or knowing it to be likely that the stone will be thus brought into contact with Z, or with Z’s clothes, or with something carried by Z, or that it will strike water and dash up the water against Z’s clothes or something carried by Z. Here, if the throwing of the stone produce the effect of causing any substance to come into contact with Z, or Z’s clothes, A has used force to Z, and if he did so without Z’s consent, intending thereby to injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z.
(f) A intentionally pulls up a woman’s veil. Here A intentionally uses force to her, and if he does so without her consent intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her, he has used criminal force to her.
(g) Z is bathing. A pours into the bath water which he knows to be boiling. Here A intentionally by his own bodily power causes such motion in the boiling water as brings that water into contact with Z, or with other water so situated that such contact must affect Z’s sense of feeling; A has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done this without Z’s consent intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force.
(h) A incites a dog to spring upon Z, without Z’s consent. Here, if A intends to cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he uses criminal force to Z.
Section 129, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 350 Criminal force Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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.
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.
-
State vs Salman Khan& ORS.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 350, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Damage caused to wildlife, even if not calculable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to ecology and society at large. Therefore, provisions of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Section 149 IPC read with Section 141 IPC (Clause Thirdly covering 'other offence'), can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act when committed by an unlawful assembly. However, Sections 147 and 148 IPC (rioting and rioting with deadly weapons) cannot be applied to wildlife hunting as they require use of criminal force against persons, not animals. Criminal force under Section 349 IPC is limited to force causing motion or change of motion in another person.
On this section: Criminal force by act endangering life or personal safety - Court noted that criminal force must be intended to cause motion or change of motion in another person
-
State vs Saif Ali
Decided under Indian Penal Code 350, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The provisions of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, can be applied to offences under special laws like the Wildlife Protection Act, but only to the extent that the underlying offence falls within the scope of the specific IPC provision. Section 149 IPC can be applied to wildlife protection violations when committed by an unlawful assembly because hunting protected animals constitutes 'mischief' under Section 425 IPC, which falls within Clause Thirdly of Section 141 IPC's definition of unlawful assembly. However, Section 147 IPC (rioting) cannot be applied to wildlife hunting because rioting requires use of criminal force on persons, not animals. The definition of 'offence' under Section 40 IPC extends to special laws when the offence is punishable with imprisonment of six months or more, and damage to wildlife constitutes loss to the public through ecological harm, thereby satisfying the mischief definition.
On this section: Criminal force - Referenced in context of criminal force definition and application
-
State vs Dushyant Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 350, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The provisions of Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act to the extent that: (1) Section 147 (rioting) and Section 148 (rioting with deadly weapons) cannot apply because criminal force as defined in Section 349 IPC requires use of force on another person, not on animals; (2) Section 149 (act of member of unlawful assembly) can apply when an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing mischief against wildlife, as 'mischief' under Section 425 IPC includes damage to wildlife which constitutes loss to ecology and public; (3) The definition of 'offence' under Section 40 IPC extends to special laws like the Wildlife Protection Act for purposes of Section 141 IPC (unlawful assembly), particularly Clause Thirdly which covers 'other offence'; (4) Damage to wildlife, even if not calculable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to the public and society, bringing it within the definition of mischief.
On this section: Criminal force by act - Court noted that criminal force requires effect on another person
-
State vs Neelam Kothari
Decided under Indian Penal Code 350, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Damage caused to wildlife, even if not evaluable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to public ecology and society at large. Therefore, the provisions of Section 141 IPC (unlawful assembly) can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, and consequently, Section 149 IPC (act of any member of unlawful assembly) applies to wildlife hunting offences when multiple persons act with common object to commit mischief. However, Sections 147 and 148 IPC (rioting and rioting with deadly weapons) do not apply to wildlife hunting as they require criminal force affecting persons, not animals.
On this section: Criminal force by act - Court examined whether criminal force was used in the wildlife hunting incident
-
Renjith vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 350, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the essential ingredients of an offence, namely assault or criminal force as defined in Sections 350 and 351 IPC, are not made out from the allegations in the charge sheet, and the prosecution case contains material factual discrepancies (such as misidentification of the vehicle type), the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings as an abuse of the process of court, even if the case is pending in the lower court.
On this section: Definition of criminal force - applied to determine whether the accused intentionally used force without consent to cause injury, fear or annoyance to the public servant
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 129
What have the courts held on Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
State vs Salman Khan& ORS. (24 Jul 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 350, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Criminal force by act endangering life or personal safety - Court noted that criminal force must be intended to cause motion or change of motion in another person. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2012 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 129 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 129, section 129 BNS, section 129 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 129 g in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State vs Salman Khan& ORS. (24 Jul 2012).
What should I read with Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 350 (Criminal force), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 129, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.