If you learned criminal law under the old regime, "Section 375" probably still comes to mind faster than "Section 63." That's normal — the Indian Penal Code (IPC) governed rape law for over 160 years before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced it on July 1, 2024. The good news for anyone still doing the mental renumbering: the substance of rape law hasn't been rewritten. What has changed is more subtle — a mix of renumbering, consolidation, one genuinely important textual change, and a few structural updates. This post walks through exactly what moved, what stayed the same, and what's actually new.
The Quick Answer
Section 63 BNS is Section 375 IPC, carried forward almost word for word. If you know 375, you already know most of 63. The differences are:
- One substantive change to the marital rape exception's age threshold (15 → 18, now written directly into the text).
- Renumbering and consolidation of related offences that used to live in separate IPC sections.
- Some drafting clean-up — clearer language, explicit recognition of electronic/digital evidence.
- No change to the core definition of rape, the list of acts that constitute it, or the circumstances that vitiate consent.
At a Glance: Section Mapping
| Old IPC Section | New BNS Section | What It Covers |
|---|---|---|
| 375 | 63 | Definition of rape |
| 376 | 64 | Punishment for rape |
| 376(3) | 65(1) | Rape of a woman under 16 |
| 376AB | 65(2) | Rape of a woman under 12 |
| 376A | 66 | Rape causing death or persistent vegetative state |
| 376B | 67 | Sexual intercourse by husband with wife living separately, without consent |
| 376D / 376DA / 376DB | 70(1) / 70(2) | Gang rape (merged into a single section with sub-clauses) |
| 376E | 71 | Punishment for repeat offenders |
This table alone explains why the renumbering feels disorienting at first: several IPC sections that were separately numbered (376D, 376DA, 376DB) have been folded into a single BNS section (70) with sub-clauses, while others (376A, 376B) simply got new numbers with no substantive change.
What Actually Stayed the Same
This is the most important thing to internalise: the definition of rape itself is essentially unchanged. Section 63 BNS retains the same structure as Section 375 IPC — a man is said to commit rape if he penetrates (or causes penetration of) a woman's body in specified ways, under any of the seven circumstances that negate valid consent (without consent, under fear of injury, under misconception of fact, and so on). The explanations defining "consent" and clarifying that lack of physical resistance does not imply consent have also been retained.
This continuity matters practically: decades of Supreme Court precedent interpreting Section 375 — on what counts as consent, how to assess a "misconception of fact," corroboration standards, the weight given to a survivor's testimony — continues to apply directly to Section 63. Courts have made clear that this body of case law isn't being discarded or relitigated; it transfers over because the underlying text hasn't materially changed.
The One Change That Actually Matters: Exception 2 and the Age of Consent
Section 375's Exception 2 — the marital rape exception — originally read that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape provided the wife is not under 15 years of age. That 15-year threshold had already been effectively overridden by the Supreme Court in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), which read the exception up to 18 years to align it with India's other child-protection laws — but the IPC's text still said 15.
Section 63 BNS closes that gap: Exception 2 now explicitly says 18 years, directly in the statutory language, rather than relying on a judicial reading-up of an older text. So while the actual legal position on the ground didn't change (courts had already applied 18 since 2017), the codification did — BNS 63 finally says on paper what courts had already been enforcing in practice
What the Marital Rape Exception Still Doesn't Do
Here's where continuity, not change, is the headline: Section 63 BNS retains the marital rape exception in substance. Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife — provided she is 18 or above — still does not amount to rape under Section 63, exactly as under the old Section 375. This has drawn continued criticism from women's rights advocates and remains the subject of ongoing constitutional challenges. The BNS was, in this respect, a missed opportunity for reform rather than a change — Parliament chose to carry the exception forward rather than repeal it, and it remains a live and contested issue in Indian jurisprudence.
Separately, BNS Section 67 (formerly Section 376B IPC) continues to criminalise a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent while they are living separately — but this carries a considerably lighter sentence than rape under Sections 63/64, a gap critics have also flagged as inconsistent with the goal of protecting bodily autonomy.
Structural and Drafting Changes
A few changes are more about form than substance:
- Consolidation of related offences. The old gang-rape framework was spread across Sections 376D, 376DA, and 376DB IPC (differentiated mainly by the victim's age). BNS Section 70 merges these into one section with two sub-clauses — 70(1) for gang rape generally, and 70(2) for gang rape of a victim under 18 — with enhanced, victim-focused penalties, including a mandatory requirement that fines be paid directly to the victim for medical care and rehabilitation.
- Digital and electronic evidence. Commentary on the BNS transition notes that Section 63, unlike its predecessor, is read alongside the new evidentiary framework (the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) that explicitly recognises electronic and digital records — relevant given how much modern rape and sexual-assault evidence (messages, call records, location data) is now digital in nature.
- Simplified, modernised language. The BNS generally replaces archaic Victorian-era phrasing with more direct language across the board, and Section 63 is no exception — though the legal meaning of the provision is not altered by this rewording.
- Overall renumbering logic. India's criminal law went from 511 sections under the IPC to 358 under the BNS — but this reduction is achieved largely through merging and restructuring existing provisions (as with gang rape above), not by deleting substantive protections.
What's New Around Section 63, Even If Not Inside It
Two provisions introduced elsewhere in the BNS interact closely with Section 63 and are worth knowing if you're mentally mapping the "rape law" chapter as a whole:
- Section 28 BNS (formerly Section 90 IPC) continues to define when consent is invalid — under fear of injury or misconception of fact — and remains the backbone of "false promise of marriage" rape cases prosecuted under Section 63.
- Section 69 BNS is genuinely new: a standalone offence for sexual intercourse obtained by "deceitful means" (including false promises of marriage or employment, or concealment of identity) that doesn't rise to the level of rape. This didn't exist as a separate provision under the IPC and has already generated debate over whether it overlaps with, or is redundant against, Section 63 itself.
Bottom Line
If you're translating your old IPC knowledge into BNS terms: Section 63 is Section 375, renumbered, cleaned up in language, and with one real textual update (the age of consent in the marital exception, now 18 in the text itself). The definition of rape, the consent framework, and the weight of existing Supreme Court precedent all carry over intact. Where things get genuinely new is around Section 63 rather than inside it — particularly Section 69's fresh offence for deceptive sexual intercourse, and the consolidated, victim-centric gang-rape provisions in Section 70. The marital rape exception, meanwhile, remains exactly where it was: unresolved, and still a matter for Parliament or the courts to eventually revisit.
This blog is for general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. For matters involving Section 63 BNS, please contact us.