Section 377 IPC: Unnatural offences
Indian Penal Code, 1860
This section has been read down by the Supreme Court
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court read down Section 377 in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, decided on 6 September 2018, holding it unconstitutional so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults in private. The section was not struck down entirely: it continues to apply to non-consensual acts, acts involving minors and bestiality. The classification below applies only to that surviving part.
Section 377 IPC at a Glance
Section 377 IPC deals with unnatural offences. It is non-bailable and cognizable, triable by Magistrate of the first class. It has no direct equivalent in the BNS.
Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
Section 377 IPC Bare Act Text
377. Unnatural offences
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
ExplanationPenetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
Source: Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 377 IPC in Simple Words
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealt with unnatural offences. It provided that whoever voluntarily had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal was punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term extending to ten years, and was also liable to fine.
Penetration was declared sufficient to constitute the intercourse. In Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India in 2018, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court read down Section 377 IPC as unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults in private.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita contains no counterpart to Section 377 IPC, leaving unnatural offences repealed without a replacement provision in the new code.
Ingredients of Section 377 IPC
- The accused had voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature with a man, woman, or animal
- Penetration sufficient to constitute carnal intercourse occurred
- The act was committed voluntarily by the accused
Punishment Under Section 377 IPC
Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
The offender shall also be liable to fine.
Section 377 IPC provides imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for up to ten years, and liability to fine. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that it does not apply to consensual sexual conduct between adults.
Example of Section 377 IPC
When Section 377 IPC Does Not Apply
- Section 377 IPC does not apply when no penetration of any kind has taken place during the physical contact.
- Section 377 IPC does not apply when the sexual intercourse is in accordance with the order of nature.
- Section 377 IPC does not apply when the person did not participate voluntarily and was forced or compelled against their will.
Section 377 IPC in the BNS
Repealed without counterpart. Section 377 IPC was read down by the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India in 2018 to exclude consensual sexual conduct between adults in private. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita omitted unnatural offences altogether, creating no replacement offence for non-consensual carnal intercourse against adult men or for bestiality.
FAQs on Section 377 IPC
What conduct did Section 377 IPC penalise?▼
Section 377 IPC penalised voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal.
What effect did Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India in 2018 have on Section 377 IPC?▼
The Supreme Court held that Section 377 IPC could not constitutionally criminalise consensual sexual relationships between adults in private.
Does the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita include a provision equivalent to Section 377 IPC?▼
No; the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita omitted unnatural offences entirely and contains no counterpart to Section 377 IPC.
What was the punishment prescribed under Section 377 IPC?▼
The section provided for imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term extending to ten years, and liability to fine.
Was the fine under Section 377 IPC mandatory?▼
No; the statutory text provided that the offender shall also be liable to fine rather than prescribing a mandatory fine.
What does the Explanation to Section 377 IPC say about penetration?▼
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence.
Was an offence under Section 377 IPC bailable?▼
No; Section 377 IPC was classified as non-bailable under the First Schedule to the CrPC.
Was Section 377 IPC a cognizable offence?▼
Yes; Section 377 IPC was a cognizable offence under the First Schedule to the CrPC.
Which court conducted trials under Section 377 IPC?▼
Trials under Section 377 IPC were conducted by a Magistrate of the first class.
Could an offence under Section 377 IPC be compounded?▼
No; Section 377 IPC was not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.
Have questions about Section 377 IPC?
Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, punishment details, or how it applies to your situation.
Ask NyayGuru →Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.
Sources: Bare Act Text, Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Last updated: 16 Oct 2026 ·