What is IPC Section 310?
IPC Section 310 fell within Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code ("Of Offences Affecting the Human Body"), within the sub-chapter "Of Offences Affecting Life." It was a highly specific, historically-rooted provision defining "thug" as a status offence — one is a "thug" not by reason of a single criminal act, but by reason of habitual association with others for the specific purpose of committing robbery or child-stealing, where that purpose is accompanied by or effected through murder.
This provision must be understood against its historical backdrop: it was enacted as part of the British colonial administration's legal and administrative campaign, beginning in the 1830s under officials such as William Sleeman, against what was characterized as an organized, hereditary criminal fraternity known as "Thugs" or "Thuggee," alleged to have operated across large parts of the Indian subcontinent, ritually strangling and robbing travelers. Contemporary historical scholarship has substantially revised and, in significant respects, challenged the colonial-era narrative of Thuggee, suggesting that the phenomenon was considerably exaggerated, and in part constructed, to serve colonial administrative and ideological purposes.
Important Update: IPC to BNS Transition
With effect from 1 July 2024, the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for offences committed on or after that date. Unlike most IPC provisions, which were carried forward into the BNS with renumbering and, in some cases, substantive modification, Sections 310 (defining "thug") and 311 (prescribing punishment) have been entirely omitted from the BNS, with no successor or equivalent provision enacted. This reflects the legislature's recognition that this colonial-era, historically specific offence category has no continued relevance or utility in contemporary Indian criminal law. Alleged conduct of the kind previously falling within Section 310 would, if it were to occur today, be addressed through the ordinary provisions on murder, robbery, dacoity, kidnapping, and criminal conspiracy, rather than through any dedicated "thug"-specific provision.
Legal Provision — Text of Section 310 IPC
This section was directly linked to Section 311 (which prescribed the punishment for being a thug), and both provisions were unique within the IPC in defining an offence based primarily on a status of habitual association, rather than a specific, discrete criminal act.
Related Punishment — Section 311 (Historical)
| Punishment for Being a Thug (S.311) | Imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine (originally "transportation for life," substituted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955) |
|---|---|
| Nature of Offence (S.311) | Cognizable |
| Bailable / Non-Bailable (S.311) | Non-Bailable |
| Compoundable (S.311) | Not compoundable |
| Triable By (S.311) | Court of Session |
| Current Status | Both Sections 310 and 311 have been entirely omitted from the BNS, 2023, with no successor provision |
Historical Background: The "Thuggee" Campaign
Section 310's origins trace back to the early 19th-century British colonial administration's identification and prosecution of what it termed "Thuggee" — a supposedly organized, hereditary, and ritualistic criminal fraternity engaged in robbery and strangulation-murder of travelers across various regions of India. British colonial official William Sleeman led a systematic legal and administrative campaign against this alleged phenomenon in the 1830s, resulting in thousands of prosecutions, convictions, and executions or transportations under special "Thuggee and Dacoity" legislation that predated and then informed the drafting of the IPC in 1860.
Contemporary historical and postcolonial scholarship has significantly complicated this narrative, with many historians arguing that the scale and organized nature of "Thuggee" was substantially exaggerated by colonial administrators, and that the category itself may have been, in part, a colonial construction used to justify expanded police and judicial powers, and to categorize certain itinerant or marginalized communities as inherently "criminal." This historical reassessment forms important context for understanding why Section 310, despite remaining formally on the statute books until 2024, had become an entirely obsolete and unused provision in modern Indian criminal practice.
Status Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Official government and legal commentary accompanying the transition to the BNS explicitly lists Sections 310 (Thug) and 311 (Punishment) among a small group of provisions deleted entirely from the new Code, alongside other obsolete or since-invalidated provisions such as Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide, now decriminalized), Section 377 (unnatural offences, following the Supreme Court's decision in Navtej Singh Johar), and Section 497 (adultery, following the Supreme Court's decision in Joseph Shine). This places the "thug" provisions in the category of historical curiosities within the IPC — provisions that, while technically part of the law until 30 June 2024, had no practical contemporary application and have now been formally and completely removed from India's criminal statute book.
Important / Historical Notes on Section 310
Colonial-Era Thuggee Trials
The historical "Thuggee and Dacoity" trials conducted under British colonial administration in the 1830s and thereafter, which directly informed the drafting of IPC Sections 310-311, resulted in a large number of convictions based on approver testimony and colonial administrative classifications of hereditary criminality — a practice and evidentiary approach that would raise significant due process concerns under modern constitutional and criminal procedure standards.
Deletion Under the BNS, 2023
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in its official comparative documentation, explicitly identifies Sections 310 and 311 IPC as among the provisions removed entirely from the new Code, reflecting a deliberate legislative decision that this colonial-era, historically specific offence category serves no purpose in India's modern criminal justice framework.