Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 129
Criminal force
Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. Illustrations.
(a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the motion is produced without any other action on any person’s part. A has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely that this use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force to Z.
(b) Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z’s horses, and thereby causes them to quicken their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to change their motion. A has therefore used force to Z; and if A has done this without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has used criminal force to Z.
(c) Z is riding in a palanquin. A, intending to rob Z, seizes the pole and stops the palanquin. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by his own bodily power. A has therefore used force to Z; and as A has acted thus intentionally, without Z’s consent, in order to the commission of an offence. A has used criminal force to Z.
(d) A intentionally pushes against Z in the street. Here A has by his own bodily power moved his own person so as to bring it into contact with Z. He has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z.
(e) A throws a stone, intending or knowing it to be likely that the stone will be thus brought into contact with Z, or with Z’s clothes, or with something carried by Z, or that it will strike water and dash up the water against Z’s clothes or something carried by Z. Here, if the throwing of the stone produce the effect of causing any substance to come into contact with Z, or Z’s clothes, A has used force to Z, and if he did so without Z’s consent, intending thereby to injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z.
(f) A intentionally pulls up a woman’s veil. Here A intentionally uses force to her, and if he does so without her consent intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her, he has used criminal force to her.
(g) Z is bathing. A pours into the bath water which he knows to be boiling. Here A intentionally by his own bodily power causes such motion in the boiling water as brings that water into contact with Z, or with other water so situated that such contact must affect Z’s sense of feeling; A has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done this without Z’s consent intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force.
(h) A incites a dog to spring upon Z, without Z’s consent. Here, if A intends to cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he uses criminal force to Z.
Why this exists
This provision continues the definition first laid out in Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, drafted by the Macaulay Commission. Its purpose is to give a precise legal meaning to 'force' so that later offences like assault, and criminal force against public servants or women, can be built on a clear foundation. The illustrations show that force need not be a direct blow — causing motion, stopping motion, or triggering an object or animal against someone all count, as long as it is intentional, without consent, and connected to a crime or the intent/knowledge of causing injury, fear, or annoyance.
How courts read it
Indian courts, interpreting the identical language under the former Section 350 IPC, have consistently held that 'criminal force' requires proof of intentional physical contact or its equivalent (like causing motion) combined with either criminal intent or awareness of likely harm, fear, or annoyance. Courts have applied illustration (f) — pulling a woman's veil — in cases involving outraging modesty, and have used the broader definition to cover indirect acts like inciting animals, confirming that direct bodily touch is not always necessary.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Criminal force only means hitting or physically touching someone directly.
Fact: The law also covers indirect force, like causing a boat to drift, setting a dog on someone, or throwing a stone that hits them or their belongings. - Myth: If there's no injury, it can't be criminal force.
Fact: The law says causing fear or annoyance (not just injury) is enough, as long as it was intended or known to be likely. - Myth: Accidental contact counts as criminal force.
Fact: The force must be intentional and without consent — accidents don't meet the legal definition.