Rape — BNS Statutory Definition
What most people assume
The central rape offence is written around the act itself, not the sex of the victim.
What the law actually says
The BNS rape provisions are drafted around specified sexual acts committed by a man against a woman. The statutory definition also retains a marital exception where the wife is not under eighteen years of age.
Who this applies to
- A woman, as the statutorily defined victim of the specific offence of rape as drafted in the BNS
Why it exists
The provision responds to a long-documented, specific pattern of sexual violence against women and was shaped through decades of reform, including major amendments following high-profile cases and law-commission review, aimed at strengthening protections for women specifically.
Where the asymmetry is
The statutory architecture defines rape around a male perpetrator and a female victim, and preserves a marital exception tied to the wife's age. Separately, and more starkly: the BNS eliminated the old Section 377 offence that used to give a male or transgender victim of non-consensual sexual conduct a route into the criminal law, without enacting a replacement. A Parliamentary Standing Committee recommended retaining coverage for non-consensual acts and bestiality; that recommendation was not adopted in the final Act.
What this does not mean
That an adult male victim of comparable non-consensual conduct has a clean statutory equivalent elsewhere in the BNS. Unlike the old Indian Penal Code — which, alongside the sex-specific rape offence, also had Section 377, covering non-consensual acts against a man, woman or animal — the BNS dropped Section 377 entirely and did not replace it. Reporting on the practical effect describes a male victim of comparable conduct as currently having to rely on general provisions such as hurt or grievous hurt, which do not name the conduct as a sexual offence at all. This is a narrower and more serious gap than "some other provision probably covers it."
Safeguards / limits
- The marital exception is narrowly tied to the wife not being under eighteen, and has been the subject of ongoing legal and public debate
- General provisions such as hurt or grievous hurt can still be charged for the underlying physical conduct, even though they do not capture its sexual character
- The gap is currently the subject of active litigation asking courts to read the BNS provisions as gender-neutral — see Ground reality below
Correction notice
An earlier version of this entry said other BNS provisions — “unnatural offences, assault with intent to outrage modesty” — could fill this gap for a male victim. That was wrong on both counts: the BNS does not contain an “unnatural offences” provision at all (that was Section 377 of the old IPC, which was dropped, not carried forward), and “outraging modesty” is itself a women-specific provision, not a gender-neutral fallback. See the Updates page for the full correction record.
Ground reality
This is the single starkest asymmetry in OIM’s Law Library, and it is worth being precise about exactly what changed. The old Indian Penal Code had two relevant provisions: Section 375 (rape, sex-specific), and Section 377 (unnatural offences, covering non-consensual acts against “any man, woman or animal” — the provision that, after the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling decriminalised consensual adult conduct, continued to give a male or transgender victim of non-consensual sexual violence a route into the criminal law). When the BNS replaced the IPC on 1 July 2024, Section 377 was deleted outright, with no replacement provision enacted in its place — despite a Parliamentary Standing Committee explicitly recommending that coverage for non-consensual acts and bestiality be retained.
As of this entry’s last check, the practical result reported by multiple legal outlets is that a male victim of comparable non-consensual conduct has no offence in the BNS that names what happened to him as a sexual offence; the closest available charge is a general “hurt” or “grievous hurt” provision. In August 2026, a Delhi High Court bench, hearing a public interest litigation asking for a gender-neutral reading of the BNS sexual-offence provisions, remarked that it cannot judicially create an offence Parliament chose to omit — that filling this specific gap is for the legislature, not the courts. That litigation had not produced a final, citable judgment as of this entry’s checked date; OIM will add a full Case File once it does, rather than citing an oral remark as settled precedent.
Why the reader needs to care now
If you are trying to understand how the law would actually respond to a specific set of facts involving a male victim, the honest current answer is: probably not through a sexual-offence provision at all, and that gap is currently a live, unresolved legal and political question — not a footnote.
Primary source
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — India Code →
LAW CHECKED · 08 SEPT 2026