Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation
Section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation 1.—Grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the punishment for an offence under this section,—
(a) if the provocation is sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for the offence; or
(b) if the provocation is given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant, in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant; or
(c) if the provocation is given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation 2.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to mitigate the offence, is a question of fact.
Section 131, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 352 Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation. | Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
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.
-
Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 352, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Members of an unlawful assembly share criminal liability for deaths caused by other members in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, even if they did not directly perpetrate the killing, provided they actively participated in the crime through facilitating acts such as preventing rescue efforts or demonstrating force with weapons, and this liability can be established through reliable eye-witness testimony corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and mere presence at the scene with knowledge of the common object is sufficient when combined with active facilitation.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt - Discussed as potential alternative charge for members sharing original common object of merely assaulting without intention to cause death
-
Lunaram vs Bhupat Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 352, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court reviewing an order of acquittal must apply strict scrutiny and recognize the double presumption of innocence (from criminal jurisprudence and from the acquittal itself). While appellate courts have full power to review evidence, they should not interfere with acquittal orders unless the judgment is clearly unreasonable, material evidence has been unjustifiably ignored, or glaring mistakes are evident. When two reasonable conclusions are possible from the evidence on record, one favoring conviction and one favoring acquittal, the appellate court must uphold the acquittal and not disturb the lower court's finding. In cases where eyewitness testimony is contradicted by credible medical and expert evidence that demonstrates the prosecution's version is physically impossible, the acquittal based on credibility assessment may be upheld. The appellate court's role is to prevent miscarriage of justice from acquittal of the guilty, but not at the cost of convicting the innocent on potentially unreliable evidence.
On this section: Criminal intimidation; charged but focus of judgment remained on more serious charges of murder
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Amol Nanasaheb Jogdanda
Decided under Indian Penal Code 352, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the primary witness (complainant) in a criminal case admits to an out-of-court settlement with the accused and recants the allegations, and no other credible corroborating evidence is presented by the prosecution, the accused persons must be acquitted as the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged. The court cannot convict based on mere allegations when the complainant himself contradicts the complaint and admits to amicable resolution of the dispute.
On this section: Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation - applied to alleged physical violence
-
Narayan Singh S/o Nathu Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 352, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving charges of violent offences under Sections 143, 147, 352, 307, and 251 IPC, where the accused have been in custody for a substantial period, have no criminal antecedents, and the evidence does not indicate the use of firearms or the most serious form of violence, bail may be granted under Section 439 CrPC with appropriate personal bonds and sureties to ensure court appearance and compliance with bail conditions.
On this section: Assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation - charge against accused
-
Vijay Singh vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 352, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person with a history of criminal conduct and involvement in multiple prior criminal cases, particularly when such history demonstrates a pattern of habitual offending, is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, as the criminal antecedents constitute sufficient grounds for denial of bail.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The matter was listed before the learned Joint Registrar on 01.05.2025, wherein the statement of respondent no. 2 has been recorded as under:- "I am the Respondent no. 2 in the present petition. At my instanee, FIR bearing no. 157/2024, Under Section 131 & 79 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS, 2023 (Under Section 352/509 IPC) was registered at PS Chitranjan Park, Delhi against the petitioner. The charge sheet has been Tiled against the petitioner. Now, I have voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion from anyone and with the intervention of friends and well …
-
… The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.145/2024 registered at Police Station Senthal, District Dausa (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 324(5), 324(6), 303(2) & 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short 'BNS') 2023 and Sections 3/25 & 25(6) of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 324(5), 324(6), 131, 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(5), 61(2) & 49 of BNS, 2023 …
-
… The separate charges referred to in illustrations (a) to (g), respectively, may be tried at the same time. Illustrations to sub-section (3) (h) A wrongfully strikes B with a cane. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sub-section (2) of section 115 and section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (i) Several stolen sacks of corn are made over to A and B, who knew they are stolen property, for the purpose of concealing them. A and B thereupon voluntarily assist each other to conceal the sacks at the bottom of a grain-pit. A and B may be separately charged with, and …
Questions about Section 131
What have the courts held on Section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar (23 Feb 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 352, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Voluntarily causing hurt - Discussed as potential alternative charge for members sharing original common object of merely assaulting without intention to cause death. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
Is Section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 131 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 131, section 131 BNS, section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 131 in ipc. 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 Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar (23 Feb 2017).
What should I read with Section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 352 (Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called assault, and cited as BNS 131, 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.