Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to committing of theft
Section 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to committing of theft. Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustrations.
(a) A commits theft on property in Z’s possession; and while committing this theft, he has a loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this pistol for the purpose of hurting Z in case Z should resist. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A picks Z’s pocket, having posted several of his companions near him, in order that they may restrain Z, if Z should perceive what is passing and should resist, or should attempt to apprehend A. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 307, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 382 Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Dilbagh Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 382, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is not named in the First Information Report and identification is sought to be established for the first time in court after a long interval, the prosecution must arrange a test identification parade as a matter of procedural safeguard and criminal jurisprudence. Conviction cannot be sustained on the sole basis of courtroom identification without such a parade, especially when the circumstances and logic (such as the first informant being from the same small village) render the identification inherently unreliable. The burden of proof always remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it is not the accused's obligation to prove innocence through defence evidence. Circumstantial evidence and motive must be positively established; assertion without material on record is insufficient.
On this section: Charge of theft - charge applied in connection with the alleged taking of the gun from the family
-
Dilbagh Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 382, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of eyewitnesses who are closely related to the deceased is admissible, credible and reliance-worthy in criminal proceedings if upon independent scrutiny their evidence is found to be truthful, reliable and free from doubt, even when substantiated solely through medical evidence and circumstantial corroboration rather than forensic examination of recovered weapons. Eyewitnesses cannot be faulted for not effectively resisting or countering armed terrorists acting with premeditation and outnumbering the victims, and failure to prevent the crime or save the victim does not render their testimony unreliable. Defense testimony introduced 15 years after the crime without contemporaneous reporting to authorities and based on hearsay village rumors carries minimal evidentiary weight when arrayed against corroborated eyewitness and medical evidence.
On this section: Theft by person committing or attempting to commit dacoity. Applied to sustain conviction for unlawful taking of 7.62 bore rifle during the commission of murder by armed persons acting with common intention.
-
Hardev Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 382, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court awards multiple sentences without explicitly specifying whether they shall run concurrently or consecutively, and the appellate court fails to address this ambiguity, the High Court in revision can clarify and direct that sentences run concurrently. If the petitioner has already served the period of imprisonment that would result from concurrent sentences, he must be released immediately from custody.
On this section: Dacoity - applied to convict the petitioner for committing robbery with criminal intimidation
-
Sagar vs Union Territory
Decided under Indian Penal Code 382, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner with an extensive criminal history involving multiple serious offences (dacoity, robbery, theft, forgery, and drug-related crimes) cannot be granted parole merely on the grounds of meeting family members or performing conjugal rights, particularly when the parole authority has reasonably determined that releasing such a prisoner would pose a potential danger to society.
On this section: Theft after preparation made for causing death or hurt - FIR No. 12 of 2016
-
Mohd Abdul Gaffer @ Mohd Gaffer vs The State of Telangana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 382, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person is convicted in two or more separate cases for different transactions with different crime numbers and decided by different judgments, the normal principle is that sentences shall run consecutively unless the court specifically directs otherwise under Section 427 CrPC. Such discretionary direction requires sound judicial reasoning based on the nature of offence and facts of the case. A habitual offender with multiple convictions is not entitled to concurrent sentencing as a matter of right. The High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC will not interfere with well-considered judgments of lower courts based on sound appreciation of facts and law unless there is compelling reason or illegality.
On this section: Punishment for theft after preparation made for dacoity or robbery - Initially applied by trial court but altered by appellate court to Section 379 IPC.
-
STATE vs HARJINDER SINGH
Decided under Indian Penal Code 382, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent, and convincing evidence. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit from weaknesses in the defense. When the main eyewitness (complainant) turns hostile and does not support the prosecution version, and when there is no other credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Disclosure statements obtained during custodial interrogation under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act cannot be used against the accused and have no evidentiary value. The burden of proof always rests on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused.
On this section: Theft with preparation to cause hurt - requires proof of snatching with weapon; not established due to lack of eyewitness identification
-
STATE vs HARJINDER SINGH
Decided under Indian Penal Code 382, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution fails to present credible and sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal and the benefit of doubt, regardless of the length of litigation or the seriousness of the charges.
On this section: Theft - The section defines theft as dishonest taking of movable property with intent to permanently deprive the owner. The court examined whether the prosecution proved this element.
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 307
What have the courts held on Section 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Dilbagh Singh vs State of Punjab (08 May 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 382, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Charge of theft - charge applied in connection with the alleged taking of the gun from the family. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 307 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 307, section 307 BNS, section 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 307 in ipc. 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 Dilbagh Singh vs State of Punjab (08 May 2008).
What should I read with Section 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 382 (Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 307, 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.