When offence proved included in offence charged
Section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with when offence proved included in offence charged. When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.
Illustrations.
(a) A is charged, under sub-section (3) of section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with criminal breach of trust in respect of property entrusted to him as a carrier. It appears, that he did commit criminal breach of trust under sub-section (2) of section 316 of that Sanhita in respect of the property, but that it was not entrusted to him as a carrier. He may be convicted of criminal breach of trust under the said sub-section (2) of section 316.
(b) A is charged, under sub-section (2) of section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with causing grievous hurt. He proves that he acted on grave and sudden provocation. He may be convicted under sub-section (2) of section 122 of that Sanhita.
Section 245, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 222 When offence proved included in offence charged Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
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.
-
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 222, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with dacoity-with-murder under Section 396 IPC, the ingredient of murder defined under Section 300 IPC is expressly incorporated into Section 396 by specific statutory language. Therefore, if the evidence establishes that the accused committed murder but does not establish the dacoity component, the accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge for Section 302, provided: (a) the accused had notice that murder was an allegation against him through the Section 396 charge and Section 313 examination where facts were put to him; (b) he had full opportunity to defend himself; (c) no prejudice resulted to his right to fair trial, presumption of innocence, or the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (d) the ingredients of murder under Section 300 IPC are satisfied by the evidence. The principle of cognate offences permits such conviction when the graver offence (dacoity-with-murder) incorporates the essential elements of the lesser offence (murder) by express statutory language, and the accused suffered no failure of justice.
On this section: Conviction for minor offence when person charged with offence consisting of several particulars or when facts reduce offence to minor offence. Applied to permit conviction for lesser cognate offence
-
Pandharinath vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 222, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused person charged with the major offence of rape (Section 376 IPC) can be convicted of the lesser cognate offence of attempted rape (Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC) if: (1) the ingredients of the major offence are not fully established; (2) the ingredients of the lesser offence are proved; and (3) the two offences are cognate in nature, sharing common main ingredients but differing in degree of punishment. Specifically, the removal of a victim's clothes and gagging of the mouth, coupled with intent to commit rape, constitutes attempted rape even if full sexual intercourse is not established. The absence of cross-examination suggestions by the accused regarding key allegations amounts to acceptance of those allegations.
On this section: Permits conviction for a minor or lesser offence even when charged with a major offence, if the ingredients of the lesser offence are proved and the two offences are cognate in nature.
-
Dalbir Singh vs State of U. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 222, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with one offense (e.g., Section 302 IPC) and the evidence establishes a different offense (e.g., Section 306 IPC) for which no formal charge was framed, conviction under the latter offense is permissible under Section 464 Criminal Procedure Code if: (1) the accused had adequate notice of the allegations constituting that offense through cross-examination of witnesses and his examination under Section 313; (2) the main facts sought to be established were explained to him clearly; (3) he was given a fair and full opportunity to defend himself against those allegations; and (4) no substantial prejudice was caused to the accused. The determination of prejudice must employ a broad vision focusing on substance rather than technicalities, with the ultimate inquiry being whether the accused received a fair trial.
On this section: Minor offense conviction; examined whether Section 306 IPC is a minor offense in relation to Section 302 IPC, and the court held that the two offenses are of distinct categories despite being in the same tragedy.
-
Pawan Kumar vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 222, 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: Permits conviction of a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is tried. However, Section 306 IPC cannot be considered a minor offence in relation to Section 302 IPC as they are distinct and different categories.
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 245
What have the courts held on Section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P (04 Aug 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 222, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Conviction for minor offence when person charged with offence consisting of several particulars or when facts reduce offence to minor offence. Applied to permit conviction for lesser cognate offence. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2011.
How do I find court cases under Section 245 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 245, section 245 BNSS, section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss ki dhara 245. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P (04 Aug 2011).
What should I read with Section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 117 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 316 (Criminal breach of trust), section 316 (Record of examination of accused), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 222 (When offence proved included in offence charged), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 245, 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.