Correction: the BNS rape-definition entry overstated a male victim's fallback options
The Law Library entry on the BNS rape definition previously said other BNS provisions — "unnatural offences, assault with intent to outrage modesty" — could serve as fallback routes for a male victim of non-consensual sexual conduct. That was inaccurate on both counts and has been rewritten.
We stated: Other general offences the BNS retains — for example unnatural offences or assault with intent to outrage modesty — may still apply depending on the conduct.
Correct position: The BNS does not contain an "unnatural offences" provision at all — that was IPC Section 377, which the BNS dropped outright with no replacement. "Outraging modesty" is itself a women-specific provision, not a gender-neutral fallback. The practical fallback reporting points to is a general "hurt"/"grievous hurt" charge, which does not name the conduct as a sexual offence. A Delhi High Court bench heard a related PIL in August 2026 and remarked that courts cannot judicially create the offence Parliament omitted.
Bar and Bench — "Court can't create Section 377 IPC-like offence in BNS: Delhi High Court" →