Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Sexual offences
Section 376E: Punishment for repeat offenders
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Whoever has been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section 376 or section 376A or [section 376AB or section 376D or section 376DA or section 376DB,] and is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable under any of the said sections shall be punished with imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.]]
State amendments to this section
Chhattisgarh After Section 376E of the Penal Code, the following shall be inserted, namely: — 376F. Liability of person in-charge of workplace and others to give information about offence. —Whoever, being person in-charge of any work place or any other person present at such place, having knowledge that an offence under section 376 or section 376D, is being committed at such place and being in a position to prevent commission of such offence fails so, to prevent such offence or to give information of the commission of such offence, to any magistrate or police officer, by any mode, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, shall be liable to be punished for abetment of such offence with imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years and fine and no such person shall incur any liability for giving such information.
Explanation:—Work-place includes any mode of transport owned, hired or otherwise engaged by the person in-charge of the work place for the conveyance of the woman, who was subjected to such offence, to and from her residence to such work-place. [Vide Chhattisgarh Act 25 of 2015, s. 5].
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 376E
-
Khem Singh (D) Through Lrs v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc.
During pendency of these appeals, son of original appellant (since deceased) filed an application seeking setting aside of the abatement and for substitution. Whether the applicant is entitled to be substituted in place…
-
Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another
Whether the appellant-company falls under the definition of ‘victim’ in terms of s.2(wa) r/w the proviso to s.372, CrPC or whether s.378, CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances; whether an appeal under the…
-
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
Issue arose as regards the maintainability of an appeal under proviso to s.372 CrPC against order of acquittal in a case instituted upon a private complaint u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, by treating the…
-
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Nature of chargesheets filed in some jurisdictions by the State/ Police, without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense or putting the relevant evidence on record; significance of chargesheets…
-
Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand
The issue for consideration was the compliance of the requirements of a Police Report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending,…
-
Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Whether the power of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail u/s 438 CrPC could be exercised with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdict ion of the said Court; and…
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam
In cases relating to offences arising out of the Vyapam Scam, respondents-accused filed applications seeking direction to supply a Hindi translation of the charge sheet filed by the appel lant in English language.…
- State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy & Another. Etc.
- Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- G H P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Anr.
- P Ramesh v. State Rep by Inspector of Police
- Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
- Nipun Saxena & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India
- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Classic Credit Ltd.
- Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra & Anr