Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed
Section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed someone of the said offences.
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of an act which may amount to theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating. He may be charged with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust and cheating, or he may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating.
(b) In the case mentioned, A is only charged with theft. It appears that he committed the offence of criminal breach of trust, or that of receiving stolen goods. He may be convicted of criminal breach of trust or of receiving stolen goods (as the case may be), though he was not charged with such offence.
(c) A states on oath before the Magistrate that he saw B hit C with a club. Before the Sessions Court A states on oath that B never hit C. A may be charged in the alternative and convicted of intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which of these contradictory statements was false.
Section 244, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 221 Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed 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.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 221, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Allows any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences to inquire into or try all of them.
-
Kailash Kumar Singla vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 221, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an investigator discovers illegal gratification during investigation of a bribery case and subsequently discovers disproportionate assets of the accused, the registration of a separate FIR for disproportionate assets does not constitute abuse of investigative power or violation of Section 300 CrPC, provided the investigator conducts independent inquiry into the accused's income and expenditure. The disproportionate assets case is a distinct offense from the bribery case, and successive FIRs for such distinct offenses do not fall within the prohibition against double jeopardy or the principle established in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala.
On this section: Requirement for clarity on the offense committed; petitioner argued this section was violated, but court held it was not applicable as the offense was clear
-
Pawan Kumar vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 221, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Alternative charges cannot be framed under Section 302 IPC and Section 306 IPC simultaneously because these are distinct offences with different ingredients. The framing of alternative charges is permissible only when doubt exists as to the nature of the offence, not when facts are in doubt. When a trial court exercises its power under Section 216 Criminal Procedure Code to alter charges from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC, it must consider the case diary and medical report, and must follow proper procedure to ensure the accused is not prejudiced and has adequate opportunity to meet the altered charge.
On this section: Provision regarding framing of alternative charges. Permits alternative charges only when doubt exists as to the nature of the offence, not when facts are in doubt. Cannot be applied to distinct offences.
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 244
What have the courts held on Section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 221, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Allows any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences to inquire into or try all of them. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 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: BNSS 244, section 244 BNSS, section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 244 bnss in crpc and bns 244 section. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 221 (Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 244, 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
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 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.