General explanations
Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with general explanations. Throughout this Sanhita every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every Illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled General Exceptions, though those exceptions are not repeated in such defi The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Throughout this Sanhita every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every Illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled General Exceptions, though those exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision, or Illustration.
Illustrations
.
(a) The sections in this Sanhita, which contain definitions of offences, do not express that a child under seven years of age cannot commit such offences; but the definitions are to be understood subject to the general exception which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
(b) A, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Z, who has committed murder. Here A is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement; for he was bound by law to apprehend Z, and therefore the case falls within the general exception which provides that "nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it".
(2) Every expression which is explained in any Part of this Sanhita, is used in every Part of this Sanhita in conformity with the explanation.
(3) When property is in the possession of a person's spouse, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is in that person's possession within the meaning of this Sanhita.
Explanation.---A person employed temporarily or on a particular occasion in the capacity of a clerk or servant, is a clerk or servant within the meaning of this sub-section.
(4) In every Part of this Sanhita, except where a contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions.
(5) When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
(6) Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.
(7) Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence.
Illustration.
A intentionally causes Zs death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A has committed murder.
(8) When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally cooperates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.
Illustrations.
(a) A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects the several doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B intentionally cooperate in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate.
(b) A and B are joint jailors, and as such have the charge of Z, a prisoner, alternatively for six hours at a time. A and B, intending to cause Z's death, knowingly cooperate in causing that effect by illegally omitting, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food supplied to them for that purpose. Z dies of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z.
(c) A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A, intending to cause Z's death, illegally omits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without collusion or cooperation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z's death. Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not cooperate with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder.
(9) Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.
Illustration.
A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z's death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable homicide.
Section 3, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 6 Definitions in the Code to be understood subject to exceptions Close, with changes 70%
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.
-
Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 34, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-14.pdf 2022-01-07 (not same-date order-13 ROP). Kaul/Sundresh, Crl A 1584/2021. Section 34 IPC common intention is a deeming/vicarious rule: presence plus an ambiguous exhortation is not enough; there must be a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds and participation in furtherance of that intention. Map IPC 34 and successor BNS 3 (mapping.csv close; BNS 3(5) is not a sections.csv unit — do not invent 3(5)).
On this section: Successor of IPC 34 (mapping.csv close: BNS 3 General explanations, which houses 3(5)). 3(5) is not a sections.csv unit — mapped to s.3.
-
Anil S/o Shivshankar Rahule vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. , Hudkeshwar, Nagpur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When circumstantial recoveries under panchanama contain fatal and physically impossible contradictions, such as identical timing and witnesses at geographically distant locations, they cannot be prima facie relied upon to deny the liberty of bail to an accused.
On this section: Joint liability / common intention; applied to assess conspiracy with co-accused.
-
Yash Mahadeo Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra through Malegaon Police Station C R No 71 of 2026
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious violent crimes with allegations of conspiracy to commit murder (contract killing), where the investigation is ongoing, medical evidence shows grievous injury on vital parts of the body, witnesses have identified the accused, criminal antecedents exist, and there is demonstrable risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, bail should be refused even if the accused have undergone substantial custody period, as the nature and gravity of the offence and investigative requirements outweigh the right to bail at the investigation stage.
On this section: Relates to definitions and general provisions. Applied in interpreting the scope of criminal liability.
-
Govind Ramnath Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused against whom similar allegations are made have been released on bail and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has undergone significant incarceration, the principle of parity applies.
On this section: Joint liability/Common intention.
-
Gope Shamdas Rajwani vs The State of Maharashtrta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving commercial/property disputes, the willingness to deposit a portion of the disputed value and the absence of criminal antecedents can weigh in favor of granting anticipatory bail under conditions of cooperation.
On this section: Common intention/Joint liability.
-
Jaffar Ali Moosvi vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When offences alleged against an accused are punishable with less than seven years imprisonment, the accused is entitled to be issued a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS by the Investigating Officer instead of being arrested, and the High Court should direct the Investigating Officer to issue such notice rather than granting anticipatory bail, thereby protecting the accused's rights while ensuring cooperation with the investigation.
On this section: Offence alleged against the petitioner; nature and severity of the offence considered in determining bail eligibility
-
Vallac Mackson Da Souza vs The Panaji Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An owner of a seized vehicle is entitled to interim custody under Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023, upon establishing ownership through valid registration and insurance, to prevent waste and loss of value of the asset while in police custody.
On this section: Common intention/joint liability section under which the offence was registered.
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 3
What have the courts held on Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab (07 Jan 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 34, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 34 (mapping.csv close: BNS 3 General explanations, which houses 3(5)). 3(5) is not a sections.csv unit — mapped to s.3. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2022 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 3 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 3, section 3 BNS, section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 3(5) in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab (07 Jan 2022).
What should I read with Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 6 (Definitions in the Code to be understood subject to exceptions), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 3, 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
- 316. Criminal breach of trust856 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.