YouTube
Print
September 24 2025SECTION 2 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 EXPLAINED BY ADVOCATE ALOK KUMAR
SECTION 2: ________SECTION 2(3)_______ Section 2(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 defines the term “child” to mean any person below the age of eighteen years. This is a general definition provided in the “Definitions” clause of the Sanhita, and it applies throughout the Act unless a particular section provides a different meaning. The purpose of such a definition is to remove ambiguity whenever the word “child” is used in different offences or procedural provisions. For example, if a section of the BNS criminalises exploitation or abuse of a “child,” then by virtue of Section 2(3), the protection extends to anyone who is under eighteen years of age. So, if a 17-year-old is subjected to such abuse, the law will recognize them as a “child” and apply the relevant offence; however, if the person is 18 or older, they will not fall under this category. This definition ensures uniformity and clarity in legal interpretation across all provisions of the Sanhita. ________SECTION 2(7)_______ Under Section 2(7) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the term “dishonestly” is defined as doing anything with the intention of causing a wrongful gain to one person or a wrongful loss to another. The key point in this definition is that criminal liability depends on the intention behind the act rather than the act itself or its outcome. This means that even if no actual loss occurs or no gain is achieved, an act can still be considered dishonest if it was committed with the relevant intention. By focusing on the mental state (mens rea), the Sanhita ensures that attempts to deceive, cheat, or manipulate are captured under the law, even when the attempt is unsuccessful. A straightforward example of dishonesty is theft. If a person takes someone else’s property without permission intending to keep it, the act is considered dishonest. The person aims for a wrongful gain for themselves and a wrongful loss to the owner. Another example is fraudulent misrepresentation, such as selling a fake painting as an original. The seller intends to obtain money (wrongful gain) while causing financial harm to the buyer (wrongful loss). Both cases clearly show how dishonesty arises from deliberate intention to gain unfairly or cause loss to another. A more confusing scenario arises when there is intention but no actual loss or gain. For instance, if A tries to scam B by sending a fake bank email asking for a transfer, but B recognizes the fraud and does not send any money, A’s act is still considered dishonest. Here, the intention to cause a wrongful gain and a wrongful loss exists, even though the outcome did not materialize. This can be tricky for many because the law penalizes the intent, not just the result. Another subtle example is when someone gives a misleading statement without immediate consequence. Suppose C tells a friend D that an investment scheme is “guaranteed to double your money,” knowing it is highly risky, but D decides not to invest. Even though D does not lose money and C gains nothing, C’s act is still dishonest because the intention to deceive and secure wrongful gain or cause wrongful loss existed. This illustrates how dishonesty under Section 2(7) can exist even in cases where there is no tangible harm, making the concept broader and sometimes confusing in practice. HERE’S A COMPACT LIST OF REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS THAT OFTEN CONFUSE PEOPLE UNDER SECTION 2(7) OF BNS 2023, EXPLAINED IN PARAGRAPHS: 1. An example that is likely to be prosecuted is attempted fraud, such as sending a fake bank email to trick someone into transferring money. Even if the recipient does not fall for the scam, the sender’s clear intention to cause a wrongful gain for themselves and a potential loss to the recipient makes the act actionable. Similarly, misleading investment statements, such as promoting a risky scheme as “guaranteed to double money,” can be prosecuted if they are part of a scheme designed to cause financial harm. These cases involve significant financial or societal risk, making enforcement under BNS practical and likely. 2. On the other hand, some acts are unlikely to be prosecuted under BNS, even though they technically meet the definition of dishonesty. For instance, a student copying homework to gain praise or higher marks involves dishonest intention, but it is a minor academic act and does not result in serious societal or financial harm. Such cases are typically addressed by school or college disciplinary systems rather than criminal law. Similarly, an employer making deceptive promises of promotion to gain personal favors may have dishonest intent, but unless the act causes substantial wrongful gain or loss, criminal prosecution under BNS is unlikely. ________SECTION 2(9)_______ Under Section 2(9) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the term “fraudulently” is defined as doing something with the intention to defraud. The focus here is on the mental state or intention of the person committing the act, rather than on the act’s outcome. Even if the intended fraud does not succeed, the act can still be considered fraudulent if it was done with the purpose of deceiving or cheating someone. This distinction emphasizes that mens rea—the intent to defraud—is central to defining fraud under BNS. Some acts are likely to be prosecuted under BNS because they involve significant harm or legal consequences. For example, submitting false documents to obtain a bank loan constitutes fraudulent activity. The person intends to deceive the bank to gain financial advantage, making the act prosecutable. Similarly, forging legal documents such as contracts or certificates with the intent to mislead another party is considered fraudulent and is likely to attract prosecution under BNS, because it can cause serious financial or legal damage. A Gen Z–friendly example of an act that would be technically “fraudulent” under Section 2(9) but is unlikely to be prosecuted is when a student posts on Instagram claiming they have a brand-new gaming console for sale, intending to get pre-orders. In reality, they never had the console and were just exaggerating for likes or attention. While there is a small intention to mislead people, no one actually sends money and nobody suffers any real loss. Even though this fits the legal definition of “fraudulently”—because there was an intention to defraud—practical enforcement under BNS is extremely unlikely, as there is no tangible harm or significant gain/loss. It is essentially a harmless exaggeration in an informal online context. In summary, Section 2(9) of BNS 2023 covers all acts committed with an intention to defraud, but practical enforcement focuses on cases with tangible or significant harm, particularly financial, legal, or societal. Minor or informal deceptive acts, though they may meet the legal definition, are generally handled outside criminal prosecution. ________SECTION 2(14)_______ Under Section 2(14) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the term “injury” encompasses harm caused to a person’s body, mind, reputation, or property. This broad definition ensures that various forms of harm are covered under the law, providing a comprehensive framework for addressing offenses that cause personal or property-related damage. The inclusion of mental and reputational harm reflects a modern understanding of the diverse ways individuals can be wronged, beyond just physical injury. EXAMPLE 1 ONLINE DEFAMATION: Consider a scenario where a college student creates a fake social media account impersonating a classmate and posts offensive content. This act, while digital, can cause significant harm to the impersonated individual's reputation and mental well-being. Despite the absence of physical injury, the emotional distress and potential social repercussions qualify as injury under Section 2(14). Such actions, if proven malicious and intentional, could lead to legal consequences under BNS, as they fall within the broad scope of harm defined by the law. EXAMPLE 2 CYBERBULLYING LEADING TO MENTAL HARM: Another example involves cyberbullying, where an individual sends hurtful messages or spreads rumors online with the intent to cause emotional distress. The targeted person experiences anxiety, depression, or social isolation as a result. While there's no physical injury, the mental harm inflicted is recognized as injury under Section 2(14). In this context, the law acknowledges the seriousness of psychological harm and provides avenues for legal redress, emphasizing that injury is not limited to physical damage but extends to emotional and reputational harm as well. EXAMPLE 3 CANCEL CULTURE BACKLASH: Imagine a social media influencer posts an unpopular opinion, and a large group of followers starts spreading negative memes, making false claims, or harassing them online. The influencer suffers reputational harm and mental stress, but no physical injury occurs. Under Section 2(14), this counts as injury because it harms their reputation and mental well-being. This example is confusing for many because it shows that social or online backlash can legally be considered injury, even if no tangible damage happens. EXAMPLE 4 VIRTUAL PROPERTY DAMAGE IN ONLINE GAMES: A gamer hacks another player’s account and deletes valuable in-game items or skins. The victim loses property (digital assets) and may feel frustrated or distressed. Section 2(14) recognizes property-related harm as injury, even if it’s digital and not physical. This can confuse people who think “injury” only refers to the human body, but BNS clearly extends it to reputation, mental state, and property, including virtual property.
Author
Adv. ALOK KUMAR
Advocate Serving Delhi NCR
Delhi High Court & District CourtsLL.B.▪︎Faculty of Law▪︎Delhi University
Comments are not allowed on this article.
