Punishment for rape
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for rape. Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the w The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: 2. Subs. by Act 43 of 1983, s.3 for the heading "Of rape" and ss. 375 and 376.
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.
(2) Whoever,-
(a) being a police officer commits rape-
(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or
(iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or
(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.
Explanation 1.-Where a women's is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section.
Explanation 2.-"women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called and orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widows' home or by any other name, which is
established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children.
Explanation 3.-"hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.
Section 376, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 64 Punishment for rape Close, with changes 75%
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.
Referred to by 14
- Bombay Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act s. 3 Restrictions on publication of reports of judicial proceedings
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 173 Report of police officer on completion of investigation
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 198 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 198 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Criminal Law (Aunachal Pradesh Amendment) Act 2018 s. 16
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 198 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Crpc 1973 s. 198 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Gujarat Judicial Proceedings (Regulation Reports) Act s. 3
- Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act s. 7
- Indian Evidence Act s. 114A Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape
- s. 228A Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, etc
- s. 376C Intercourse by superintendent of jail, remand home, etc
and 2 more
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.
-
Independent Thought v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Exception 2 to section 375 IPC, which treated sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife aged 15-18 as not rape, is unconstitutional. Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 is rape even if she is married.
On this section: Once Exception 2 falls, intercourse with a wife below 18 is punishable as rape under s.376.
-
Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For a conviction under Section 376 IPC based on false promise of marriage, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that the accused harboured mala fide intentions and made a false promise of marriage with the sole objective of seducing the victim into sexual acts from the very inception of the relationship. Mere breach of a promise to marry, or failure to fulfil a promise due to unforeseen circumstances or changed intentions during the course of the relationship, does not constitute rape unless the deception was deliberate and predatory from the beginning. The victim's age, maturity, voluntary participation, lack of resistance, and continued hope of marriage are relevant factors in determining whether consent was genuinely given or obtained through deception.
On this section: Punishment for rape; conviction under this section was set aside by the Supreme Court on finding that consent was not obtained through fraud with mala fide intentions
-
State of Haryana vs Janak Singh & Etc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a court maintains conviction of an accused for rape under Section 376 IPC, the court is statutorily bound to impose a sentence of at least seven years imprisonment unless it assigns adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment for imposing a sentence of less than seven years. Merely stating that reduction is 'just and expedient' does not constitute adequate and special reasons as required by the proviso to Section 376(1) IPC. Such adequate and special reasons must contain extenuating circumstances which justify deviation from the minimum prescribed sentence. Sentence bargaining and casual reduction of sentences without proper reasons violate both the letter and spirit of Section 376 IPC and constitute an injustice to the victim and society.
On this section: Core provision on punishment for rape prescribing minimum imprisonment of seven years; Court emphasized that courts cannot impose sentence less than seven years without assigning adequate and special reasons as required by the proviso
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer vs Mahendra @ Golu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The rubbing of genitals on a victim's body with the clear intent to commit sexual intercourse, when the accused has taken deliberate overt steps to isolate the victim, undress both himself and the victim, and perform acts reasonably proximate to penetration, constitutes an 'attempt' to commit rape under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC, not mere 'preparation' or indecent assault under Section 354 IPC. The dividing line between preparation and attempt is determined by whether the accused has gone beyond the stage of preparation and commenced direct movement towards commission of the offence with the necessary intent, even if the attempt is interrupted before actual penetration.
On this section: Specific provision for rape of a woman under 16 years of age. The court applied this section to establish that the respondent's conduct with the minor victims fell within the ambit of rape if penetration had occurred.
-
Ganga Singh vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a rape victim (prosecutrix) is a competent and reliable form of evidence under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act requiring no mandatory corroboration in material particulars as the prosecutrix is a victim, not an accomplice. Her evidence carries the same evidentiary weight as that of an injured witness in cases of physical violence. When the prosecutrix provides a clear, categorical account of rape that is corroborated by evidence of prior consistent statements (under Section 157 IEA), forensic evidence confirming intercourse, and absence of motive for false implication, a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC can be sustained beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding absence of physical injuries or gaps in peripheral details not subject to cross-examination. The legal definition of 'consent' under Section 375 IPC requires voluntary participation involving full exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act with complete freedom of choice between resistance and assent; inability to physically resist forced intercourse negates any claim of consent. Defects in police investigation do not warrant acquittal if the prosecution has established guilt through reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt; defects only merit acquittal if they create reasonable doubt regarding the core charge.
On this section: Punishment for rape; appellant charged and convicted under this section; seven years minimum imprisonment awarded
-
Pandharinath vs State of Maharashtra
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: Rape provision; the appellant was originally charged and convicted under this section by the trial court; the High Court modified the conviction to Section 376 read with Section 511 for attempted rape.
-
State of H. P vs Suresh Kumar @ Dc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Conviction for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC can be based on the sole testimony of a credible rape victim, particularly when the victim is a minor child whose testimony is firm, convincing, and remains unshaken during cross-examination. Such conviction is justified when the victim's testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and family witness accounts, and the victim demonstrates no signs of tutoring or parental influence. Courts should not insist on independent eyewitness corroboration before accepting reliable victim testimony in rape cases, as doing so amounts to adding insult to injury. Medical evidence indicating recent sexual intercourse, even if slightly ambiguous regarding the precise date, can effectively corroborate the victim's account when the timeframe mentioned by the victim falls within the period of possible recent intercourse identified by medical examination.
On this section: Rape offense - Applied to convict the accused for sexual intercourse with the minor girl without her consent. The Court held that conviction can be based on sole testimony of credible rape victim.
-
State of M. P vs Basodi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of rape or other serious offences against the dignity of women punishable under Section 376 IPC, courts cannot reduce sentences below the statutory minimum merely on the grounds of an offender's poverty, illiteracy, low occupational status, or membership in a socially disadvantaged category. The law requires that courts record 'adequate and special reasons' - both conditions being cumulative - to justify deviation from statutory minimum sentences. Such personal circumstances of the offender, standing alone, cannot constitute adequate and special reasons. Rather, the nature and gravity of the crime, the protection of society, the deterrence of criminals, the rights of victims, and the public abhorrence of the crime must be the paramount considerations in sentencing for rape and other serious offences affecting human dignity.
On this section: Punishment for rape - prescribes life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years; the judgment emphasizes that minimum sentences are prescribed in both sub-sections (1) and (2) and discretion to impose lesser sentence exists only with 'adequate and special reasons'; this is the central statutory provision analysed in the judgment
-
Thongam Tarun Singh vs The State of Manipur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where evidence clearly establishes that a woman was subjected to sexual intercourse by more than one person acting in furtherance of common intention, conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for gang rape can be upheld even if the charge sheet did not specifically frame charges under that subsection, provided no serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. Additionally, courts possess discretion under the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC (prior to 2013 Amendment) to impose sentence less than the statutory minimum of 10 years if adequate and special reasons exist, such as the accused's youth, absence of criminal antecedents, good post-conviction conduct, and socio-economic background.
On this section: Rape provision; court analyzed both pre-amendment (prior to Act 13 of 2013) and post-amendment versions; discussed minimum sentence of 10 years pre-amendment and 7 years post-amendment
-
Bibhishan vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is charged with rape under Section 376 IPC, the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. If medical evidence (comprising absence of injury, absence of semen, intact clothing, and absence of assailant's hair) contradicts the narrative of rape and the medical examination reveals the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse, and if the lower courts have not correctly appreciated such medical evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted, even if the lower courts had convicted based on oral evidence.
On this section: Rape conviction - Applied to analyze whether the accused's conduct satisfied the elements of rape
-
A (mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 protects registered medical practitioners and medical boards when they form opinions in good faith. Medical boards must not restrict themselves to the criteria under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act but must evaluate the physical and emotional well-being of the pregnant person. When issuing clarificatory opinions, medical boards must provide sound and cogent reasons for any change in opinion. The consent of a pregnant person in decisions of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount. In case of divergence between a pregnant person and guardian's opinion, the pregnant person's view must be taken into consideration as an important aspect. The fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution must be given primacy by medical boards and courts, and delays caused by changing opinions or court procedures must not frustrate these fundamental rights.
On this section: Offense of rape; FIR was registered under this section against the alleged perpetrator
-
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, insofar as it criminalizes consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex in private, violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy and dignity, and the criminalization of consensual intimate acts between adults is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, and an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights. The State has no legitimate interest in criminalizing such conduct, and constitutional morality, not social morality, must guide interpretation. Section 377 is read down to exclude consensual acts between adults in private while remaining applicable to non-consensual acts, acts involving minors, and bestiality.
On this section: Sexual assault provision - cited to show that non-consensual acts are already criminalized, making Section 377 redundant for protection purposes.
-
Selvamani vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a victim of gang rape and her family members retract their testimony during cross-examination due to long trial delays and possible witness intimidation, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. Instead, the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence and accept those parts which are dependable and consistent with corroborating evidence such as the FIR, medical examination findings, and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. If such corroborating evidence establishes that forcible sexual intercourse occurred, the conviction can be sustained despite the victim's retraction, provided the medical evidence clearly shows injuries consistent with gang rape.
On this section: Defines gang rape as sexual intercourse by one or more persons constituting a group with a woman. Applied to convict all five accused for committing gang rape on the victim.
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions for child marriage and sexual assault of minors under the POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the victim's age at the time of marriage through reliable documentary evidence such as birth certificates and marriage documents. Oral evidence alone, without corroborating documentary proof, is insufficient to establish that a marriage was a child marriage or that sexual assault occurred on a minor. The absence of such documentary evidence, despite the prosecution's duty to produce it, results in acquittal as the charges cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Rape - The court examined whether the accused committed rape on the victim. The court found that while there was no doubt about the physical relationship and the victim's admission of being the legally married wife of the accused, the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of marriage, which is essential to constitute rape under this section in the context of child marriage.
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. When the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to establish the charges with the requisite degree of certainty, the accused must be acquitted and discharged, regardless of the gravity of the allegations.
On this section: Charge of sexual assault against the accused; the court examined whether the prosecution proved this offence beyond reasonable doubt
-
Ashiq Hussain Malla vs State through Sho Ps Karan Nagar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A bail application becomes redundant and liable for dismissal when the petitioner/accused has voluntarily surrendered before the jail superintendent, as the fundamental purpose of bail (securing temporary release from custody) is rendered moot by such surrender.
On this section: Offence of sexual assault; charge against the petitioner in FIR No. 16/2024
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 instant criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent had been allowed. The High Court, while acquitting him under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the "IPC"), has set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 02.01.2009, holding the respondent guilty of the aforementioned offences with a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the State at a …
-
… No. 3 of 2013 31st July 2013 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri[2]( page-1-0) in Sessions Case No. 487 of 2012. 2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court found the appellant (the sole accused) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3]( page-1-1) and sentenced him as follows: (i). Under Section 302 IPC: Death sentence (subject to the confirmation by the High Court) (ii). Under Section 376 IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two …
Questions about Section 376
What have the courts held on Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code?
Independent Thought v. Union of India (11 Oct 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Once Exception 2 falls, intercourse with a wife below 18 is punishable as rape under s.376. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 376, section 376 IPC, section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 376 in bns and ipc 376 punishment in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Independent Thought v. Union of India (11 Oct 2017).
What should I read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
14 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 64 (Punishment for rape), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called rape, and cited as IPC 376, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.