Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 32 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act to which a person is compelled by threats.
Lentis Legalis | 12 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 32 : Act to which a person is compelled by threats.—
Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence:
Provided that the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.
Explanation 1.
A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.
Explanation 2.
A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant death, to do a thing which is an offence by law; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception.
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Lentis Legalis | 31 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 126: Wrongful restraint.—
(1) Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
Illustration
A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
(2) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
| Section | Offence | Punishment | Cognizable or Non- Cognizable | Bailable or non-Bailable | By which Court Triable |
| 126(2) | Wrongfully restraining any person. | Simple imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Lentis Legalis | 31 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 125 BNS: Act endangering life or personal safety of others.—
Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both, but—
(a) where hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
| Section | Offence | Punishment | Cognizable or Non- Cognizable | Bailable or non-Bailable | By which Court Triable |
| 125 | Doing any act endangering human life or personal safety of others | Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 2,500 rupees, or both. | Cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
| 125(a) | Where hurt is caused. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both | Cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
| 125(b) | Where grievous hurt is caused. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine of 10,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
Lentis Legalis | 31 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 124 BNS: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.—
(1) Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt or causes a person to be in a permanent vegetative state shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.
(2) Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, “acid” includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity or permanent vegetative state shall not be required to be irreversible.
| Section | Offence | Punishment | Cognizable or Non- Cognizable | Bailable or non-Bailable | By which Court Triable |
| 124(1) | Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. | Imprisonment for not less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and fine. | Cognizable | Non-Bailable | Court of Session. |
| 124(2) | Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid. | Imprisonment for 5 years but which may extend to 7 years and fine. | Cognizable | Non-Bailable | Court of Session. |
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bonafide Need Must Be Judged on the date when the suit for eviction was filed: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Eviction Case.
From Self-Identification to State Certification: A Step Back for Transgender Rights?
No More ‘Bona Fide Need’: Allahabad High Court Redefines Eviction Standards Under the UP Tenancy Act, 2021
Supreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services
Major Relief for Law Students as Supreme Court Opens Review on Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule
Supreme Court Mandates Free Sanitary Pads, Functional Toilets and Menstrual Hygiene Infrastructure in All Schools
-
Supreme Court Highlights3 months agoSupreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services
-
Landmark judgements2 months agoMajor Relief for Law Students as Supreme Court Opens Review on Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule
-
Landmark judgements3 months agoSupreme Court Mandates Free Sanitary Pads, Functional Toilets and Menstrual Hygiene Infrastructure in All Schools
-
High Court Updates3 months agoAccessing Wife’s Private Photos Without Consent and Humiliating Her Before Family Amounts to Mental Cruelty
-
High Court Updates3 months agoSurge in Police Encounters in UP: Allahabad High Court Seeks Compliance with PUCL Guidelines
-
Crime And Justice3 months agoPre-Trial Detention, Human Rights, and the rejection of Bail of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
-
Supreme Court Highlights3 months agoSupreme Court Keeps UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Raises Concerns Over Ambiguity and Possible Misuse
-
Opinions & Columns9 months agoSchool Merger in Uttar Pradesh: A Stark Reflection of State Abdication of Educational Duty Undermining the Constitutional Mandate of Article 21-A and the RTE Act, 2009.