Section 384 IPC vs Section 308 BNS — Extortion

# Section 384 IPC vs Section 308 BNS — Extortion

Extortion involves obtaining property or valuable security from a person by putting that person in fear of injury. It is a serious property offence that combines the elements of threat and dishonest gain. Under the IPC, the punishment was provided under **Section 384** (read with Section 383 for definition). Under the BNS, the corresponding provision is **Section 308**. This page provides an educational comparison.

Section Text

Section 384 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

> "Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

Section 308 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)

> "Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

Plain Language Explanation

Extortion occurs when a person intentionally puts another person in fear of injury to that person or someone else, and thereby dishonestly induces the frightened person to deliver property, valuable security, or anything signed or sealed that can be converted into a valuable security. In everyday language, this is the offence of threatening someone to hand over money, property, or other valuables.

The threat can be of physical harm, damage to property, damage to reputation, or any other injury. The key elements are the threat, the fear created by the threat, and the delivery of property as a result of that fear.

Common examples include threatening to harm someone unless they pay money, threatening to release compromising information unless payment is made, or demanding "protection money" from business owners.

Key Ingredients / Elements

1. **The accused intentionally put a person in fear of injury** — The fear must be created deliberately.

2. **The fear is of injury to the person, or to any other person** — It can include fear for third parties.

3. **The accused thereby dishonestly induced the person** — The inducement must result from the fear.

4. **The person delivered property, valuable security, or a signed/sealed document** — There must be actual delivery of something of value.

5. **The delivery was as a result of the fear** — A causal connection must exist between the threat and the delivery.

IPC vs BNS Comparison Table

| Feature | Section 384 IPC | Section 308 BNS |

|---|---|---|

| **Offence** | Extortion | Extortion |

| **Punishment** | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both |

| **Definition** | Section 383 IPC | Corresponding provision in BNS |

| **Putting in fear of death** | Section 386 IPC (up to 10 years) | Corresponding aggravated provision in BNS |

| **Cognizable** | Yes | Yes |

| **Bailable** | No | No |

| **Triable by** | Magistrate First Class | Magistrate First Class |

| **Compoundable** | No | No |

| **Substantive change** | — | No substantive change |

Key Differences and Observations

The BNS has **retained the substance of Section 384 IPC** without modification. The punishment for basic extortion remains imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both. The definition and ingredients of the offence also remain the same.

The graduated punishment structure for aggravated forms of extortion (putting in fear of death, causing grievous hurt, etc.) is also preserved under the BNS. The hierarchy of property offences — from theft (no force) to extortion (threat of force) to robbery (actual or immediate threat of force) to dacoity (robbery by five or more persons) — continues under the new code.

Extortion has become increasingly relevant in the digital age, with cyber extortion, sextortion, and ransomware-related threats becoming common. The provision applies equally to threats made through digital means.

Important Judgments

1. **Romesh Chandra Arora v. State AIR 1960 SC 154** — The Supreme Court discussed the essential ingredients of extortion and the distinction between extortion and robbery. The Court held that in extortion, the property is delivered by the victim under fear, whereas in robbery, the property is taken by force.

2. **State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar (2000) 8 SCC 382** — Discussed the application of extortion provisions in the context of kidnapping for ransom and held that the demand for ransom and the creation of fear for the hostage's safety constitutes extortion.

3. **Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2006)** — The Court discussed the evidentiary requirements for proving extortion and held that the prosecution must establish both the threat and the delivery of property as a consequence of the threat.

4. **B.R. Sridharan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004)** — Discussed extortion in the context of demand for "protection money" and held that systematic demands backed by threats of violence constitute extortion.

5. **Ram Dhan v. State of UP (2013)** — Discussed the distinction between criminal intimidation (threat without obtaining property) and extortion (threat followed by obtaining property), which are often confused in practice.

Practical Implications

- **For legal practitioners:** The prosecution must establish the chain — threat, fear, inducement, and delivery. If property is not actually delivered, the offence may be attempt to extort or criminal intimidation. Digital evidence (messages, emails, call recordings) is increasingly important in modern extortion cases.

- **For accused persons:** The defence can focus on breaking the causal chain — showing that there was no threat, or that no fear was created, or that property was delivered for a reason other than fear. Consent obtained without fear is not extortion.

- **For victims:** Victims should preserve all evidence of threats — text messages, emails, voice recordings, CCTV footage. They should report the matter to police before making any payment, if possible. If payment has already been made, evidence of the payment (bank transfers, receipts) should be preserved.

- **For law enforcement:** Investigation should focus on documenting the threat, establishing the fear, and tracing the property or money that was extorted. In digital extortion cases, preservation of electronic evidence and coordination with cyber crime cells is essential.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the punishment for extortion different under BNS compared to IPC?

No. The punishment for basic extortion remains imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both. The BNS has not changed the punishment for extortion under this provision.

What is the difference between extortion and robbery?

Both involve obtaining property through fear, but they differ in the immediacy and nature of the fear. In extortion, the fear can be of future injury, and the victim delivers the property to the extortioner. In robbery, the fear is of immediate hurt or death, and the offender takes the property from the victim. Robbery is essentially extortion or theft combined with the use or threat of immediate violence.

Does extortion cover online threats and cyber extortion?

Yes. The law applies regardless of the medium through which the threat is communicated. Online threats, ransomware demands, sextortion (threatening to release intimate images), and threats through social media all fall within the scope of extortion if the essential ingredients are met.

Can extortion charges be compromised between parties?

No. Extortion under Section 384 IPC / Section 308 BNS is a non-compoundable offence. It cannot be settled between the parties. The prosecution must proceed regardless of any agreement between the accused and the victim.

---

*This content is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, consult a qualified legal professional. Content is compliant with Bar Council of India guidelines on legal information sharing.*