I.

INTRODUCTION

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and lays
down the foundational principles of criminal liability along with the various stages through
which a crime is committed.
The General Principles determine when and how criminal responsibility arises, while the
Stages of Crime explain the progressive steps of criminal conduct from intention to
completion.

II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER BNS, 2023

1. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea

(The act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty)

• Criminal liability requires:

o Actus Reus – a voluntary conduct or omission

o Mens Rea – a guilty mind (intention, knowledge, recklessness)

• Mere intention without act, or act without guilty mind, is not punishable unless
expressly provided.

2. Voluntary Conduct

• Liability arises only when the act is voluntary and conscious

• Acts done under:

o compulsion,

o accident,

o involuntary reflex
do not attract criminal liability.

3. Punishment for Omission

• Failure to perform a legal duty may amount to an offence.

• Example: public servant deliberately omitting a legal duty.

4. Intention, Knowledge, and Negligence

 • BNS recognizes different mental states:

o Intention – conscious objective to commit an offence

o Knowledge – awareness of consequences

o Negligence – lack of due care

• Severity of punishment depends on the degree of mens rea.

5. Strict Liability (Exception to Mens Rea)

• In certain offences, mens rea is not required.

• Liability arises merely on commission of the act.

• Example: offences affecting public safety, regulatory offences.

III. STAGES OF CRIME UNDER BNS, 2023

A crime generally passes through the following four stages:

1. Intention (Mens Rea)

• Formation of a guilty mind or determination to commit a crime.

• Not punishable, as law does not punish mere thoughts.

• Exception: when intention is manifested through preparation or attempt.

Example: Mere intention to steal without any act is not punishable.

2. Preparation

• Arranging means or measures necessary for commission of the offence.

• Generally not punishable under BNS.

• Exceptions where preparation itself is punishable:

o Waging war

o Counterfeiting currency

o Terrorist acts

Rationale: At this stage, the accused may abandon the plan.

3. Attempt

• Direct movement towards commission of the offence after preparation.

• Punishable under BNS, even if the offence is not completed.

• Essential elements:

o intention to commit the offence

o act done towards its commission

o failure beyond the control of the accused

Example: Trying to pick a pocket but failing.

4. Commission (Completed Offence)

• When the offence is fully carried out.

• Attracts maximum punishment prescribed under BNS.

• Includes cases where:

o intended harm occurs, or

o prohibited act is completed.

IV. DISTINCTION BETWEEN PREPARATION AND ATTEMPT (EXAM FAVORITE)

Basis Preparation Attempt

Nature Preliminary acts Direct act towards offence

Punishability Generally not punishable Always punishable

Stage Before attempt After preparation

Control Accused can withdraw Beyond control

V. IMPORTANCE OF STAGES OF CRIME

• Helps courts determine:

o criminal intent
 o degree of liability

o appropriate punishment

• Prevents punishment for mere thoughts.

• Balances individual liberty with social protection.

VI. CONCLUSION

The General Principles and Stages of Crime under the BNS, 2023 ensure that criminal
liability is imposed only when intention and conduct coincide. By clearly distinguishing
between intention, preparation, attempt, and commission, the BNS upholds the principles of
fairness, justice, and proportional punishment, forming the backbone of India’s modern
criminal jurisprudence.

Purpose and Importance of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Major Differences
between IPC, 1860 and BNS, 2023

I. INTRODUCTION

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) has replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
marking a significant reform in India’s criminal justice system. The new legislation seeks to
modernise substantive criminal law in accordance with constitutional values, societal
changes, and contemporary forms of crime.

II. PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

1. Decolonisation of Criminal Law

The BNS removes colonial-era concepts and language, shifting the focus from imperial
control to citizen-centric justice.

2. Justice-Oriented Approach

Unlike the IPC’s primarily punitive character, the BNS emphasises reformative, restorative,
and victim-centric justice, ensuring proportional punishment.

3. Addressing Contemporary Crimes

The BNS explicitly deals with:

 • terrorism,

• organised crime,

• mob lynching,

• cyber-enabled offences,
which were inadequately covered under the IPC.

4. Victim-Centric Framework

Greater recognition is given to the rights, protection, and compensation of victims,

strengthening public confidence in the justice system.

5. Introduction of Community Service

Community service has been introduced as a form of punishment, reflecting a shift towards
rehabilitation and social correction.

6. National Security and Public Order

The BNS strengthens provisions safeguarding the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India,
replacing outdated sedition laws.

III. MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IPC, 1860 AND BNS, 2023

Basis IPC, 1860 BNS, 2023

Nature Colonial law Indigenous, modern law

Objective Maintain colonial order Justice, security, welfare

Penal Approach Largely punitive Reformative & victim-centric

Sedition Section 124A Replaced by sovereignty-based offences

Community Service Not recognised Introduced

Modern Crimes Limited coverage Explicitly covered

Language Archaic Simplified and contemporary

Focus Offender-centric Victim-centric

IV. CONCLUSION
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 represents a paradigm shift from colonial criminal law to
a constitutional, modern, and justice-oriented framework. By addressing contemporary
crimes, strengthening national security, and focusing on reformative justice, the BNS ensures
that criminal law in India remains relevant, effective, and humane.

I. PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

Introduction

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaces the colonial Indian Penal Code, 1860
with the objective of modernising India’s substantive criminal law in accordance with
constitutional values, contemporary forms of crime, and societal needs. The BNS
represents a paradigm shift from colonial control to citizen-centric and justice-oriented
criminal jurisprudence.

1. Decolonisation of Criminal Law

The IPC was enacted to serve colonial governance and control. The BNS removes archaic
colonial terminology and offences and re-orients criminal law to serve a sovereign
democratic republic.

Case Law:
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar – The Supreme Court upheld sedition with restrictions,
highlighting the need to balance state security and free speech, which laid the groundwork
for reforming colonial offences like sedition under the BNS.

2. Shift from Punishment to Justice

Unlike the IPC’s predominantly punitive approach, the BNS emphasises:

• Victim-centric justice

• Proportional punishment

• Social harmony and reform

The introduction of community service as a form of punishment reflects the move towards
reformative and restorative justice.

Case Law:
State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat – The Court recognised reformative justice
as an essential goal of modern penology.
3. Addressing Contemporary Crimes

The BNS explicitly incorporates offences relating to:

• Organised crime

• Terrorism

• Mob lynching

• Cyber-enabled crimes

This aligns criminal law with 21st-century realities and emerging patterns of criminality.

Case Law:
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India – The Supreme Court acknowledged mob lynching
as a serious threat to rule of law, prompting the need for specific legislative recognition now
reflected in the BNS.

4. Clarity, Simplification, and Accessibility

The BNS rationalises and consolidates overlapping provisions and uses simplified statutory
language, making criminal law:

• Easier to understand for citizens

• More effective for law-enforcement agencies

• More consistent in application

Case Law:
State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh – The Court stressed that criminal statutes must be clear and
unambiguous to avoid misuse.

5. Strengthening National Security and Public Order

The BNS provides sharper tools to deal with:

• Threats to sovereignty and integrity of India

• Public disorder and collective violence

It replaces sedition with offences focused on acts endangering national unity, while
protecting legitimate democratic dissent.

Case Law:
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab – The Court held that mere slogans without incitement do
not amount to sedition, reinforcing the constitutional balance adopted by the BNS.
6. Constitutional Alignment

The BNS is harmonised with fundamental rights:

• Article 14 – Equality before law

• Article 19 – Freedom of speech with reasonable restrictions

• Article 21 – Life and personal liberty

Case Law:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India – Expanded Article 21 to include fairness, reasonableness,
and due process, principles now reflected in the BNS framework.

Importance (One-Line Exam Answer)

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 modernises Indian criminal law by replacing colonial
norms with a constitutionally aligned, victim-centric, and reform-oriented legal framework
suited to contemporary crimes.

II. MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IPC, 1860 AND BNS, 2023

Highly Scoring Comparative Table

Basis IPC, 1860 BNS, 2023

Nature Colonial legislation Indigenous, modern legislation

Objective Colonial order Justice, security, social welfare

Approach Punitive Reformative + punitive

Victim Focus Limited Enhanced

Community Service Not recognised Introduced

Sedition Section 124A Replaced by sovereignty-based offences

Mob Lynching No separate offence Specifically recognised

Organised Crime Fragmented Explicitly addressed

Language Archaic Simplified

Basis IPC, 1860 BNS, 2023

Societal Context 19th century 21st-century India

III. CONCLUSION

The replacement of the IPC, 1860 with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 marks a historic
transformation in Indian criminal jurisprudence. While the IPC served colonial
administration, the BNS reflects constitutional morality, democratic values, and modern
societal realities, thereby making criminal law more just, effective, and people-centric.

Preliminary Provisions (Sections 1–3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

I. INTRODUCTION

The Preliminary provisions form the foundation of any penal legislation, as they define the
identity, scope, territorial application, and enforceability of the law. The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaces the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, 1860, begins with
Sections 1 to 3. These provisions clarify when the law comes into force, to whom it applies,
and how offences are to be punished, thereby ensuring legal certainty and uniform
application of criminal law across India.

II. SECTION 1 – SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

(a) Short Title

Section 1 provides that the Act shall be called the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The use of
an indigenous title reflects the legislative intent to decolonise criminal law and align it with
Indian constitutional values.

(b) Territorial Extent

The Sanhita extends to the whole of India, ensuring uniform criminal law throughout the
country. This uniformity is essential for maintaining equality before law and preventing
regional inconsistencies in criminal justice administration.

(c) Commencement

The Act comes into force on such date as the Central Government may notify in the Official
Gazette. This enables the government to ensure administrative preparedness and smooth
transition from the IPC regime to the BNS framework.
Significance of Section 1

• Establishes the legal identity of the Sanhita

• Defines its geographical reach

• Confers enforceability through official commencement

III. SECTION 2 – PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES

Section 2 lays down the general principle that every person is liable to punishment under
the BNS for acts or omissions that constitute offences as defined in the Sanhita.

Key Features:

• Recognises both acts and illegal omissions as grounds for criminal liability.

• Ensures that punishment is imposed strictly in accordance with statutory provisions.

• Reinforces the principle that no offence exists without a prescribed punishment.

Legal Importance

• Upholds the doctrine of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law).

• Prevents arbitrary or extra-legal punishment.

• Ensures predictability and fairness in criminal liability.

IV. SECTION 3 – APPLICATION OF PUNISHMENTS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LIABILITY

Section 3 clarifies that punishments under the Sanhita shall be imposed in accordance with
the nature, gravity, and classification of offences as provided in the Act.

Objectives:

• To ensure consistency in sentencing

• To uphold the principle of proportionality between offence and punishment

• To guide courts in applying punishments uniformly

Significance

• Prevents misuse of judicial discretion

• Reinforces rule of law

• Ensures punishment is neither excessive nor arbitrary

V. OVERALL IMPORTANCE OF PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS (SECTIONS 1–3)

The Preliminary provisions perform the following crucial functions:

1. Define the scope and operation of criminal law

2. Ensure legal certainty and clarity

3. Provide the jurisdictional basis for prosecution

4. Safeguard against arbitrary punishment

5. Lay the groundwork for effective enforcement of substantive provisions

These sections act as the gateway to the entire Sanhita, without which the substantive
offences cannot be properly interpreted or applied.

VI. CONCLUSION

The Preliminary provisions (Sections 1–3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 establish
the structural framework of India’s modern criminal law. By clearly defining the title, extent,
commencement, and principles of punishment, these sections ensure certainty, uniformity,
and legality in criminal justice administration. They reflect the Sanhita’s broader objective of
creating a constitutional, transparent, and people-centric penal system, marking a decisive
break from colonial criminal jurisprudence.

Punishments (Sections 4–13) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

I. INTRODUCTION

Punishment is the core mechanism of criminal law through which the State enforces legal
norms, deters wrongdoing, and ensures social order. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS), which replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860, lays down a modern, reformative, and
justice-oriented framework of punishments under Sections 4 to 13. These provisions
enumerate the kinds of punishments, their nature, duration, and mode of execution,
reflecting contemporary penal philosophy.

II. SECTION 4 – KINDS OF PUNISHMENTS

Section 4 specifies the punishments which may be imposed under the BNS, namely:

1. Death
 2. Imprisonment for life

3. Imprisonment (rigorous or simple)

4. Forfeiture of property

5. Fine

6. Community service

Significance

• Introduces community service as a punishment, marking a shift towards reformative

and restorative justice.

• Retains severe punishments like death and life imprisonment for the gravest
offences, ensuring deterrence.

III. SECTION 5 – COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OF DEATH

Section 5 empowers the appropriate Government to commute a sentence of death to:

• imprisonment for life, or

• imprisonment for a term.

Importance

• Reflects humanitarian considerations.

• Allows executive discretion to reduce extreme punishment where circumstances

justify leniency.

IV. SECTION 6 – COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE

Under Section 6, the Government may commute:

• imprisonment for life into imprisonment for a lesser term.

Legal Rationale

• Ensures flexibility in sentencing.

• Supports the principle of reformation of offenders.

V. SECTION 7 – SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE

Section 7 clarifies that:

 • imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of
the convict, unless lawfully remitted or commuted.

Significance

• Removes ambiguity regarding the duration of life imprisonment.

• Reinforces certainty in sentencing.

VI. SECTION 8 – IMPOSITION OF FINE

Section 8 deals with the levy of fine as punishment.

Key Points

• Fine may be imposed:

o independently, or

o in addition to imprisonment.

• Amount depends on the nature and gravity of the offence.

Objective

• Acts as an economic deterrent.

• Ensures proportional punishment.

VII. SECTION 9 – IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE

Section 9 provides that:

• where fine is not paid, the offender may undergo imprisonment in default.

• Such imprisonment does not discharge the liability to pay the fine.

Importance

• Prevents deliberate evasion of monetary punishment.

• Strengthens enforcement of fines.

VIII. SECTION 10 – COMMUNITY SERVICE

Section 10 formally recognises community service as a form of punishment.

Features
 • Non-custodial punishment.

• Applied to minor or less serious offences.

• Aims at rehabilitation rather than retribution.

Significance

• Reflects modern penal philosophy.

• Reduces burden on prisons.

• Encourages offender’s social reintegration.

IX. SECTION 11 – SOLITARY CONFINEMENT (WHERE PERMITTED)

Section 11 regulates the use of solitary confinement as part of imprisonment.

Safeguards

• Subject to legal limits and judicial oversight.

• Cannot be imposed arbitrarily or excessively.

Purpose

• Ensures punishment remains humane and constitutional.

X. SECTION 12 – LIMITATION ON ENHANCED PUNISHMENT

Section 12 ensures that:

• enhanced or aggravated punishment can be imposed only where expressly provided

by law.

Importance

• Prevents arbitrary escalation of punishment.

• Upholds the rule of law and legality.

XI. SECTION 13 – LIABILITY OF OFFENDERS TO MULTIPLE PUNISHMENTS

Section 13 provides that:

• where an offence attracts multiple punishments, courts may impose them as

prescribed, subject to statutory limits.

Objective
 • Ensures comprehensive punishment.

• Avoids overlap or excessive sentencing.

XII. OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE OF SECTIONS 4–13

The punishment provisions under BNS:

1. Balance deterrence, retribution, and reformation

2. Introduce community service as a progressive penal measure

3. Provide clarity and certainty in sentencing

4. Ensure punishments are constitutional, humane, and proportionate

5. Reflect a shift from colonial penal rigidity to modern criminal jurisprudence

XIII. CONCLUSION

Sections 4–13 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 constitute a comprehensive and
modern framework of punishments. While retaining severe penalties for heinous crimes,
the BNS incorporates reformative measures such as community service and provides
safeguards against arbitrary punishment. These provisions reflect India’s commitment to a
balanced, humane, and constitutionally aligned criminal justice system, marking a
significant evolution from the colonial penal structure of the past.

General Exceptions (Sections 14–44) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

I. INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of General Exceptions is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence

which recognises that not every harmful act constitutes an offence. Sections 14 to 44 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) lay down circumstances under which an act, though
apparently falling within the definition of an offence, is exempted from criminal liability.

These provisions are based on the maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” and
ensure that punishment is imposed only where blameworthiness exists.

II. OBJECT AND IMPORTANCE OF GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

1. To prevent punishment of morally innocent acts

 2. To balance individual liberty with social protection

3. To incorporate reason, fairness, and justice into criminal law

4. To protect acts done in good faith, necessity, or lawful authority

III. BURDEN OF PROOF (IMPORTANT EXAM POINT)

• Under criminal law, the burden of proving applicability of a General Exception lies
on the accused.

• However, the accused is only required to prove it on the preponderance of

probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Law:
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram – Accused may rely on circumstances emerging from
prosecution evidence itself to claim an exception.

IV. CLASSIFICATION OF GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (SECTIONS 14–44)

1. ACTS DONE BY A PERSON INCAPABLE OF JUDGMENT

(a) Act of a Child

• A child below the age of criminal responsibility is incapable of committing an

offence.

Case Law:
Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal – Age of the accused must be determined at the
time of commission of offence.

(b) Act of a Person of Unsound Mind

• A person incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the act is

exempted.

Case Law:
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat – The test of legal insanity is whether
the accused knew the nature and consequences of the act.

2. ACTS DONE WITHOUT CRIMINAL INTENT

(a) Accident

• An act done accidentally without criminal intention and with due care is not an
offence.

Case Law:
State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi – Accident must be unavoidable and without negligence.

(b) Mistake of Fact

• An act done under a bona fide mistake of fact is excusable.

• Mistake of law is not excusable.

Case Law:
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub – Mistake must be honest and reasonable.

3. ACTS DONE IN GOOD FAITH

(a) Judicial Acts

• Judges are protected for acts done in discharge of judicial duties.

Case Law:
Anowar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee – Judicial officers acting within jurisdiction are
immune.

(b) Acts Done Under Authority of Law

• Acts done pursuant to legal orders or commands are protected.

4. ACTS DONE BY NECESSITY

Doctrine of Necessity

• An act done to prevent greater harm is excusable.

Case Law:
R v. Dudley and Stephens – Necessity is not a defence for murder, though recognised in
limited circumstances.

5. PRIVATE DEFENCE (MOST IMPORTANT AREA – SECTIONS 34–44)

Nature

• Every person has a right to protect:

o their own body

o the body of others

o property

Conditions

1. Imminent threat

2. Proportional force

3. No reasonable opportunity to seek State protection

Case Laws:

• Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab – Right of private defence is preventive, not

punitive.

• Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Excessive force negates the defence.

6. CONSENT

• Acts done with free, voluntary, informed consent may not constitute offences.

• Consent obtained by fear, fraud, or misconception is invalid.

Case Law:
State of Karnataka v. Satish – Consent must be unequivocal and voluntary.

7. COMMUNICATION MADE IN GOOD FAITH

• Statements made in good faith for protection of interests are exempted.

Case Law:
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab – Good faith requires due care and attention.

V. LIMITATIONS OF GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

1. Cannot be claimed for acts involving:

o excessive violence

o mala fide intent

 2. Must strictly satisfy statutory conditions

3. Burden remains on the accused

VI. SIGNIFICANCE OF GENERAL EXCEPTIONS IN BNS, 2023

1. Reflects modern and humane criminal jurisprudence

2. Protects innocent and lawful conduct

3. Prevents misuse of criminal law

4. Ensures proportionality and fairness

5. Aligns criminal law with constitutional morality

VII. CONCLUSION

The General Exceptions (Sections 14–44) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 play a
crucial role in ensuring that criminal liability is imposed only where moral and legal guilt
coexist. By recognising incapacity, accident, necessity, good faith, consent, and private
defence, the BNS upholds the principles of justice, reasonableness, and human dignity.
These provisions act as the safety valve of criminal law, preventing unjust punishment and
reinforcing the rule of law.

Abetment, Criminal Conspiracy and Attempt

(Sections 45–62) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

I. INTRODUCTION

Criminal liability under penal law does not arise only from the actual commission of an
offence, but also from participation, planning, encouragement, and incomplete execution
of crimes. Sections 45 to 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deal with Abetment,
Criminal Conspiracy, and Attempt, thereby expanding the scope of criminal responsibility to
cover collective and preparatory criminal conduct.

II. ABETMENT (Sections 45–53)

Meaning of Abetment
Abetment means instigating, engaging in conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the commission
of an offence.

Modes of Abetment

1. Instigation – provoking or encouraging another to commit an offence

2. Conspiracy – agreement to commit an offence followed by an act or omission

3. Intentional Aid – assistance before or during commission of offence

Important Principles

• Abetment may exist even if the offence is not completed.

• Presence at the scene is not mandatory.

• Abettor is punished with the same punishment as the principal offender, unless
otherwise provided.

Case Laws

• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh – Instigation requires active encouragement

or provocation.

• State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub – Intentional aid must be deliberate and

conscious.

III. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY (Sections 54–56)

Meaning

Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit:

• an illegal act, or

• a legal act by illegal means.

Essentials

1. Agreement between two or more persons

2. Object must be illegal or unlawful

3. Meeting of minds is sufficient (actual commission not necessary in serious offences)

Nature of Offence

• Conspiracy is a continuing offence

• Punishable even if no overt act is committed (for serious crimes)

Case Laws

• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (Parliament Attack Case) – Direct evidence is
rare; conspiracy can be inferred from circumstances.

• Kehar Singh v. State (Indira Gandhi Assassination Case) – Agreement itself

constitutes the offence.

IV. ATTEMPT (Sections 57–62)

Meaning of Attempt

An attempt is a direct movement towards the commission of an offence after preparation,

which fails due to circumstances beyond the control of the accused.

Ingredients

1. Intention to commit the offence

2. Act done towards its commission

3. Failure beyond the accused’s control

Punishment

• Attempt is punishable with:

o punishment prescribed for the offence, or

o a lesser punishment as provided by law.

Distinction from Preparation

• Preparation is generally not punishable.

• Attempt is always punishable once execution begins.

Case Laws

• Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar – Attempt begins when preparation ends and
execution starts.

• State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub – Proximity test applied to determine attempt.

V. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW (QUICK REVISION TABLE)

Concept Core Idea Punishable Stage

Abetment Encouraging or aiding offence Even before offence

Conspiracy Agreement to commit offence Agreement itself

Attempt Direct act towards offence After preparation

VI. SIGNIFICANCE OF SECTIONS 45–62

1. Prevent crimes at planning and preparatory stages

2. Fix liability for collective and indirect participation

3. Strengthen deterrence against organised crime

4. Ensure that criminal intention does not escape punishment

VII. CONCLUSION

Sections 45–62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 play a vital role in expanding criminal
responsibility beyond the principal offender. By criminalising abetment, conspiracy, and
attempt, the BNS ensures that planning, encouragement, and partial execution of crimes
are adequately punished. These provisions reflect a preventive, deterrent, and modern
approach to criminal justice, essential for addressing complex and organised criminal
activities.

Offences against Women and Children: Sexual Offences

(Sections 63–73) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

I. INTRODUCTION

Sexual offences strike at the dignity, bodily integrity, and personal liberty of women and
children. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), under Sections 63 to 73, provides a
comprehensive, stringent, and victim-centric framework to address sexual violence. These
provisions replace and modernise earlier IPC offences, reflecting constitutional morality,
gender justice, and child protection.
II. SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN (SECTIONS 63–71)

1. Rape (Section 63)

Rape is defined as sexual intercourse or sexual acts with a woman:

• against her will,

• without her consent,

• with consent obtained by fear, coercion, deception, or misconception,

• when she is incapable of giving consent,

• when she is under the prescribed age.

Punishment:
Rigorous imprisonment not less than 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and
fine.

Case Law:

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh – Emphasised protection of victim’s dignity and in-
camera trials.

• State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub – Consent must be free and voluntary.

2. Aggravated Forms of Rape (Sections 64–66)

Aggravated rape includes rape committed by:

• police officers,

• public servants,

• persons in authority,

• during communal or custodial situations,

• causing death or permanent vegetative state.

Punishment:
Life imprisonment or death in the gravest cases.

Case Law:

• Mukesh v. State (Nirbhaya Case) – Upheld death penalty in cases of extreme

brutality.
3. Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means (Section 69)

Sexual intercourse induced by false promise of marriage or deception is criminalised.

Case Law:

• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra – False promise must be dishonest

from inception.

4. Sexual Harassment & Related Offences (Sections 70–71)

Includes:

• unwelcome sexual advances,

• showing pornography,

• making sexually coloured remarks,

• stalking and voyeurism.

Case Law:

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan – Recognised sexual harassment as violation of

fundamental rights.

III. SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN (SECTIONS 72–73)

1. Sexual Offences Against Children

• Any sexual act with a child below the prescribed age is an offence, irrespective of
consent.

• Law adopts strict liability, recognising the child’s incapacity to consent.

Punishment:
Severe imprisonment, including life imprisonment.

Case Law:

• Independent Thought v. Union of India – Sexual intercourse with a minor wife

amounts to rape.

2. Protection of Child’s Dignity

• Child-friendly procedures.
 • Enhanced punishment for aggravated offences.

• Emphasis on rehabilitation and protection of the child victim.

IV. SALIENT FEATURES OF SECTIONS 63–73

1. Victim-Centric Approach

2. Enhanced Punishments for Aggravated Offences

3. Recognition of Deceit-Based Sexual Exploitation

4. Strict Protection of Children

5. Alignment with Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution

V. SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE PROVISIONS

• Strengthen deterrence against sexual crimes

• Recognise consent as central to sexual autonomy

• Protect women and children as vulnerable groups

• Reflect India’s commitment to gender justice and human dignity

VI. CONCLUSION

Sections 63–73 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 represent a robust and progressive
legal framework to combat sexual offences against women and children. By expanding
definitions, enhancing punishments, and adopting a victim-centric approach, the BNS
ensures that sexual violence is addressed with severity, sensitivity, and constitutional
commitment. These provisions mark a significant step towards ensuring safety, dignity, and
equality for women and children in India.

Criminal Force and Assault against Women

(Sections 74–79) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

I. INTRODUCTION
Protection of a woman’s bodily integrity, dignity, and personal liberty is a core concern of
criminal law. Sections 74 to 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 specifically deal with
criminal force and assault committed against women, recognising that such acts are often
rooted in gender-based violence and power imbalance. These provisions strengthen
safeguards against physical and sexual indignities inflicted upon women.

II. CONCEPT OF CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT

Criminal Force

Criminal force involves:

• Intentional use of force against a woman,

• Without her consent,

• With the intent to commit an offence or to outrage her modesty.

Assault

Assault refers to:

• An act or gesture creating reasonable apprehension of use of criminal force,

• Even without actual physical contact.

III. SECTION-WISE OVERVIEW (SECTIONS 74–79)

Section 74 – Assault or Criminal Force to Woman with Intent to Outrage Modesty

• Penalises use of force or assault on a woman intending to outrage her modesty.

• Focus is on intent, not degree of injury.

Punishment:
Imprisonment and/or fine.

Case Law:
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill – Modesty is an attribute of female dignity; any act violating it
attracts criminal liability.

Section 75 – Sexual Intent in Criminal Force

• Criminal force used with sexual intent attracts enhanced punishment.

• Covers acts short of rape but involving sexual aggression.

Case Law:
State of Punjab v. Major Singh – Even minimal physical contact can outrage modesty if sexual
intent is present.

Section 76 – Disrobing or Compelling a Woman to Be Naked

• Criminalises acts of:

o forcibly disrobing,

o compelling a woman to be naked,

o assault with such intent.

Punishment:
Rigorous imprisonment with fine.

Case Law:
State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa – Sexual violence includes acts degrading dignity, not only
intercourse.

Section 77 – Voyeurism

• Punishes watching, capturing, or disseminating images of a woman engaged in a

private act without consent.

Case Law:
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – Recognised privacy as a fundamental right; voyeurism
violates bodily and informational privacy.

Section 78 – Stalking

• Includes:

o physical following,

o repeated contact,

o monitoring online activity against a woman’s will.

Case Law:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India – Misuse of digital platforms affecting personal liberty
attracts criminal liability.
Section 79 – Criminal Intimidation with Sexual Overtones

• Threats intended to:

o coerce,

o silence,

o sexually exploit a woman.

Case Law:
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka – Intimidation must be real and capable of causing alarm.

IV. ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF SECTIONS 74–79

1. Gender-Specific Protection

2. Recognition of Sexual Intent and Dignity

3. Inclusion of Digital and Non-Physical Harassment

4. Victim-Centric Approach

5. Alignment with Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution

V. SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE PROVISIONS

• Protect women from everyday forms of gender violence

• Address both physical and psychological harm

• Criminalise conduct that degrades female dignity

• Strengthen deterrence against harassment and abuse

• Reflect constitutional commitment to gender justice

VI. CONCLUSION

Sections 74–79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide a comprehensive legal
framework to combat criminal force and assault against women. By recognising sexual
intent, protecting privacy, and addressing both physical and non-physical forms of violence,
these provisions ensure that the law responds effectively to gender-based offences. They
reaffirm the State’s duty to safeguard women’s dignity, autonomy, and equality, making
criminal law more responsive and humane.
Offences Relating to Marriage

(Sections 80–87) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

I. INTRODUCTION

Marriage is a social institution protected by law, and criminal law intervenes when marital
relationships are abused through deceit, coercion, cruelty, or exploitation. Sections 80 to 87
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deal with offences relating to marriage, largely
continuing the framework of the IPC while strengthening women-centric and victim-
protective principles. These provisions aim to preserve the sanctity of marriage and protect
individuals, especially women, from marital abuse.

II. SECTION-WISE EXPLANATION

Section 80 – Marrying Again During Lifetime of Husband or Wife (Bigamy)

• A person commits an offence if they contract a second marriage during the

subsistence of a valid first marriage.

• Applies to both men and women.

• Exception: where the first marriage is declared void by a competent court.

Punishment:
Imprisonment and/or fine.

Case Law:
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India – Conversion of religion to contract a second marriage
without dissolving the first is invalid and punishable.

Section 81 – Bigamy with Concealment of Former Marriage

• Applies where the accused conceals the fact of an existing marriage from the person
with whom the second marriage is contracted.

• Treated as an aggravated form of bigamy.

Case Law:
Lily Thomas v. Union of India – Bigamy laws apply irrespective of religious conversion if first
marriage subsists.
Section 82 – Marriage with Fraudulent Intent

• Criminalises marriage solemnised by:

o deception,

o false representation,

o fraudulent intent.

Purpose:
To protect individuals, particularly women, from sham or deceitful marriages.

Case Law:
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav – Fraud vitiates marital consent.

Section 83 – Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband

• Includes:

o physical or mental cruelty,

o harassment for dowry,

o conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide.

Punishment:
Imprisonment and fine.

Case Law:
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat – Mental cruelty includes sustained abusive conduct causing
psychological harm.

Section 84 – Enticing or Detaining a Married Woman

• Penalises:

o taking away,

o enticing,

o detaining a married woman with criminal intent.

Objective:
To protect marital stability and the autonomy of married women.
Case Law:
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill – Emphasised protection of dignity and autonomy of women.

Section 85 – Adultery-Related Conduct (Modified Approach)

• While adultery as an offence has been decriminalised, associated acts involving

coercion or exploitation attract liability under BNS.

Case Law:
Joseph Shine v. Union of India – Adultery is not a crime but remains a civil wrong.

Section 86 – Invalid Marriage Due to Coercion or Deceit

• A marriage is punishable if consent is obtained by:

o force,

o threat,

o fraud.

Case Law:
Uday v. State of Karnataka – Consent obtained through misconception is not valid consent.

Section 87 – Abetment and Attempt in Marital Offences

• Covers abetment or attempt to commit offences under Sections 80–86.

• Ensures comprehensive criminal liability.

III. SALIENT FEATURES OF SECTIONS 80–87

1. Protection of marital sanctity

2. Strong safeguards for women

3. Recognition of mental and emotional cruelty

4. Criminalisation of deception and coercion in marriage

5. Alignment with constitutional values under Articles 14, 15, and 21

IV. SIGNIFICANCE OF OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE

 • Prevents misuse of marriage as a tool of exploitation

• Protects women from cruelty, bigamy, and fraud

• Balances personal liberty with social responsibility

• Reinforces dignity and equality within marital relationships

V. CONCLUSION

Sections 80–87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide a robust criminal framework
to regulate offences relating to marriage. By penalising bigamy, cruelty, fraud, and coercion,
these provisions safeguard the institution of marriage while ensuring justice, dignity, and
protection for vulnerable spouses, particularly women. The BNS thus reflects a modern,
constitutional, and humane approach to marital offences.

Causing of Miscarriage, etc.

(Sections 88–92) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

I. INTRODUCTION

Protection of a woman’s bodily autonomy, reproductive health, and life is a vital concern of
criminal law. Sections 88 to 92 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deal with offences
relating to causing miscarriage, death of an unborn child, and harm to pregnant women.
These provisions balance the sanctity of motherhood with lawful medical termination, while
criminalising acts done without consent, in bad faith, or with malicious intent.

II. OBJECT OF SECTIONS 88–92

1. To protect pregnant women from coercion and violence

2. To safeguard the life of the unborn child

3. To penalise illegal and unsafe abortion practices

4. To distinguish between lawful medical termination and criminal acts

III. SECTION-WISE EXPLANATION

Section 88 – Causing Miscarriage

• Whoever voluntarily causes a woman to miscarry is punishable.

• Exception: Miscarriage caused in good faith to save the life of the woman is not an
offence.

• Consent of the woman is relevant for determining severity of punishment.

Punishment:
Imprisonment and/or fine; enhanced punishment if woman is “quick with child”.

Case Law:
Dr. Jacob George v. State of Kerala – Acts done in good faith for medical necessity are
protected.

Section 89 – Causing Miscarriage Without Woman’s Consent

• Applies where miscarriage is caused without the consent of the pregnant woman.

• Considered a grave offence, irrespective of intention to save life.

Punishment:
Severe imprisonment, including life imprisonment.

Case Law:
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration – Recognised reproductive autonomy and
consent as integral to personal liberty under Article 21.

Section 90 – Death Caused by Act Done with Intent to Cause Miscarriage

• Where an act intended to cause miscarriage results in the death of the woman, the
offender is liable.

• Knowledge of likelihood of death enhances liability.

Punishment:
Imprisonment up to life.

Case Law:
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub – Intention and knowledge determine criminal liability.
Section 91 – Act Done with Intent to Prevent Child Being Born Alive or to Cause Death
After Birth

• Criminalises acts intended to:

o prevent a child from being born alive, or

o cause its death after birth.

• Requires intentional conduct, not accident.

Punishment:
Imprisonment and fine.

Case Law:
People v. Sorenson (comparative principle) – Intention to destroy life at birth is punishable.

Section 92 – Causing Death of Quick Unborn Child by Act Amounting to Culpable Homicide

• Applies when death of a quick unborn child is caused by an act amounting to

culpable homicide.

• Recognises advanced stage of pregnancy deserving higher protection.

Punishment:
Imprisonment and fine.

Case Law:
R v. Church – Established causation principles relevant to homicide-related offences.

IV. IMPORTANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1. Consent is central to determining criminality

2. Good faith medical acts are protected

3. Greater protection to advanced pregnancy

4. Distinction between lawful abortion and criminal miscarriage

V. SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE PROVISIONS

• Prevent exploitation of women’s reproductive vulnerability

• Discourage unsafe and illegal abortions

• Balance women’s rights with protection of unborn life

 • Align criminal law with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution

VI. CONCLUSION

Sections 88–92 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide a comprehensive and humane
legal framework addressing offences relating to miscarriage and harm to unborn children.
By criminalising acts done without consent, in bad faith, or with malicious intent—while
protecting lawful medical procedures—the BNS upholds women’s autonomy, human
dignity, and the sanctity of life. These provisions reflect a modern, rights-based approach
to reproductive justice within criminal law.

Offences against Children

(Sections 93–99) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

I. INTRODUCTION

Children are a vulnerable class requiring special protection under criminal law. Sections 93
to 99 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 specifically criminalise acts that endanger the
life, safety, dignity, and development of children. These provisions reflect India’s
constitutional mandate under Articles 15(3), 21, and 39(f) and align with international child-
rights standards.

II. OBJECT AND SCOPE

The provisions aim to:

1. Protect children from abuse, neglect, and exploitation

2. Penalise acts causing physical or mental harm

3. Ensure special deterrence against crimes targeting minors

4. Recognise children’s incapacity to protect themselves

III. SECTION-WISE EXPLANATION (SECTIONS 93–99)

Section 93 – Exposure and Abandonment of Child

 • Criminalises exposing or abandoning a child under circumstances likely to cause
harm.

• Liability extends to parents or persons having custody.

Punishment:
Imprisonment and/or fine.

Case Law:
Sheela Barse v. Union of India – Emphasised State’s duty to protect children from neglect
and abandonment.

Section 94 – Concealment of Birth by Secret Disposal of Dead Body

• Penalises secret disposal of a child’s dead body to conceal birth.

• Protects against socially motivated crimes and infanticide.

Case Law:
State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh – Concealment of birth amounts to a serious offence
affecting societal conscience.

Section 95 – Hiring, Employing or Using Child for Criminal Acts

• Criminalises:

o employing,

o hiring,

o using a child to commit any offence.

• Recognises children as victims, not offenders.

Punishment:
Enhanced punishment for organisers and exploiters.

Case Law:
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu – Child exploitation for unlawful activities violates
fundamental rights.

Section 96 – Procuration of Child

• Penalises inducing or taking a child for:

o sexual exploitation,
 o illegal or immoral purposes.

Case Law:
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India – Children cannot be treated as objects of exploitation;
rehabilitation is essential.

Section 97 – Kidnapping or Abduction of Child

• Kidnapping or abducting a child for:

o ransom,

o begging,

o trafficking,

o exploitation.

Punishment:
Severe imprisonment reflecting gravity of offence.

Case Law:
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India – Strong measures required against child
trafficking and abduction.

Section 98 – Sale of Child

• Criminalises selling a child for:

o prostitution,

o forced labour,

o illegal adoption,

o trafficking.

Case Law:
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India – Sale and trafficking of children
violates human dignity.

Section 99 – Buying of Child

• Punishes anyone who buys or receives a child for exploitative purposes.

• Complements Section 98 by penalising the demand side.

Case Law:
Vishal Jeet v. Union of India – Strong enforcement needed to dismantle child exploitation
networks.

IV. SALIENT FEATURES OF SECTIONS 93–99

1. Child-centric and protective approach

2. Treats children as victims, not accomplices

3. Addresses both physical and moral harm

4. Covers abandonment, trafficking, exploitation, and criminal use

5. Harmonises criminal law with child-rights jurisprudence

V. SIGNIFICANCE OF OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN

• Strengthens deterrence against child abuse

• Recognises child vulnerability and dependency

• Reinforces State’s parens patriae role

• Supports rehabilitation and protection over punishment

VI. CONCLUSION

Sections 93–99 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide a comprehensive and humane
legal framework to protect children from abandonment, exploitation, trafficking, and
criminal misuse. By imposing stringent liability on offenders and recognising children as
victims in need of care and protection, the BNS reinforces India’s commitment to child
welfare, human dignity, and constitutional morality.

Offences Affecting the Human Body: Offences Affecting Life

(Sections 100–113) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

INTRODUCTION
The protection of human life is the foremost duty of criminal law. The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 100 to 113, deals with offences affecting life, such as culpable
homicide, murder, death by negligence, abetment of suicide, attempt to murder, and dowry
death. These provisions are framed to ensure that acts resulting in loss of life are punished
according to the intention, knowledge, or negligence of the offender and are in consonance
with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

OBJECT OF SECTIONS 100–113

The objectives of these provisions are:

1. To protect the sanctity of human life

2. To distinguish between murder and culpable homicide

3. To ensure proportionate punishment

4. To penalise negligent and reckless acts causing death

5. To address modern forms of offences affecting life

SECTION-WISE EXPLANATION

Section 100 – Culpable Homicide

Culpable homicide means causing death:

• with the intention of causing death, or

• with intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death, or

• with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Case Law:
State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya – Culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its
species.

Section 101 – Murder

Culpable homicide amounts to murder when the act is done:

• with intention to cause death, or

 • with intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.

Punishment:
Death or imprisonment for life and fine.

Case Law:
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab – Intention to inflict the particular injury is sufficient.

Section 102 – Punishment for Murder

This section prescribes the maximum punishment, recognising murder as the gravest
offence.

Case Law:
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab – Death penalty to be awarded only in the “rarest of rare”
cases.

Section 103 – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

Applies where death is caused without premeditation or intention to kill, such as in sudden
fights.

Case Law:
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana – Sudden fight without intention reduces murder to culpable
homicide.

Section 104 – Causing Death by Negligence

When death is caused by a rash or negligent act without intention or knowledge.

Case Law:
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab – Criminal negligence must be gross and culpable.

Section 105 – Abetment of Suicide

Whoever instigates, aids, or encourages the commission of suicide is punishable.

Case Law:
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab – There must be clear mens rea to constitute abetment.
Section 106 – Attempt to Commit Suicide

The BNS adopts a reformative approach, focusing on care and rehabilitation rather than
punishment.

Case Law:
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab – Right to life does not include right to die.

Section 107 – Attempt to Murder

Where intention or knowledge exists to cause death, but death does not occur.

Case Law:
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub – Proximity of act and intention are decisive.

Section 108 – Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide

Punishes acts done with intention or knowledge likely to cause death, though death does
not occur.

Section 109 – Causing Death by Consent

Consent of the deceased does not absolve criminal liability.

Section 110 – Dowry Death

Death of a woman within seven years of marriage due to cruelty or harassment for dowry.

Case Law:
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab – Cruelty must be shown “soon before death”.

Section 111 – Attempt to Cause Death by Dangerous Means

Includes use of poison, fire, explosives, or lethal weapons.

Section 112 – Death Caused While Committing Another Offence

Enhanced punishment where death occurs during commission of another offence.

Section 113 – Collective Liability in Causing Death

Recognises liability where death is caused by acts of a group or mob.

SALIENT FEATURES

1. Clear classification of homicide offences

2. Importance of intention, knowledge, and negligence

3. Recognition of group liability

4. Victim-centric and proportional punishment

5. Alignment with constitutional values

CONCLUSION

Sections 100–113 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide a comprehensive and
graded legal framework for offences affecting life. By distinguishing between murder,
culpable homicide, negligence, and attempts, these provisions ensure that punishment is
imposed according to the degree of moral culpability. The law thus upholds the right to life,
while ensuring justice, deterrence, and fairness in criminal punishment.

Offences Affecting the Human Body: Hurt

(Sections 114–125) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

INTRODUCTION

The offence of hurt relates to acts which cause bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to a person
without causing death. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 114 to 125,
provides a detailed framework dealing with simple hurt, grievous hurt, voluntarily causing
hurt, and aggravated forms of hurt. These provisions aim to protect the physical integrity
and health of individuals and ensure proportionate punishment based on the nature and
gravity of injury.

OBJECT OF SECTIONS 114–125

The main objectives are:

1. To protect individuals from physical harm

 2. To distinguish between simple and grievous hurt

3. To punish intentional, negligent, and aggravated acts of violence

4. To maintain public order and personal security

SECTION-WISE EXPLANATION

Section 114 – Hurt

Hurt is defined as causing:

• bodily pain, or

• disease, or

• infirmity
to any person.

Actual physical injury is not necessary; even temporary pain amounts to hurt.

Case Law:
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub – Bodily pain, however slight, is sufficient to constitute
hurt.

Section 115 – Voluntarily Causing Hurt

A person voluntarily causes hurt when:

• he intends to cause hurt, or

• he knows that his act is likely to cause hurt.

Punishment:
Imprisonment or fine or both.

Case Law:
Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan – Intention or knowledge is sufficient for voluntary hurt.

Section 116 – Grievous Hurt

Grievous hurt includes serious injuries such as:

• emasculation
 • permanent loss of sight or hearing

• fracture or dislocation of bone

• any injury endangering life

Case Law:
Jashanmal Jhamatmal v. Brahmanand Sarupanand – Fracture includes even partial breaking
of bone.

Section 117 – Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt

When grievous hurt is caused intentionally or knowingly, higher punishment is prescribed.

Case Law:
Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan – Knowledge of likely grievous injury attracts liability.

Section 118 – Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means

Applies when hurt is caused by:

• firearms

• sharp weapons

• corrosive substances

• explosives

Punishment:
Enhanced punishment due to greater risk to life.

Case Law:
State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam – Use of dangerous weapon aggravates offence.

Section 119 – Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons

Where grievous hurt is caused using dangerous weapons or means.

Case Law:
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab – Nature of weapon and injury determine gravity of offence.

Section 120 – Hurt to Public Servant

Hurt caused to:

 • public servant

• while discharging official duty

is punishable with stricter punishment.

Case Law:
State of Haryana v. Ram Singh – Protection of public servants is essential for rule of law.

Section 121 – Hurt to Deter Public Servant from Duty

If hurt is caused to prevent or deter a public servant from lawful duty, it constitutes a serious
offence.

Section 122 – Hurt by Poison, Acid, etc.

Covers hurt caused by:

• poison

• acid

• corrosive or harmful substances

Case Law:
Laxmi v. Union of India – Acid attacks violate the right to life and dignity.

Section 123 – Attempt to Cause Grievous Hurt

Punishes attempts even if grievous hurt is not actually caused.

Section 124 – Hurt by Act Endangering Life or Safety

Includes reckless or dangerous acts likely to cause hurt.

Case Law:
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab – Gross negligence attracts criminal liability.

Section 125 – Repeated or Aggravated Hurt

Provides enhanced punishment for:

• repeat offenders
 • aggravated circumstances

SALIENT FEATURES

1. Clear distinction between hurt and grievous hurt

2. Enhanced punishment for dangerous weapons and public servant cases

3. Recognition of intent, knowledge, and negligence

4. Victim-centric protection of bodily integrity

5. Proportional punishment based on severity

CONCLUSION

Sections 114–125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide a comprehensive legal
framework for offences relating to hurt. By classifying injuries, recognising aggravated
circumstances, and prescribing proportionate punishment, these provisions ensure effective
protection of human body and personal security. The law balances individual liberty with
societal order and upholds constitutional values of life, dignity, and safety.

Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

(Sections 126–127) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

INTRODUCTION

Personal liberty and freedom of movement are essential aspects of human rights protected
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under
Sections 126 and 127, deals with the offences of wrongful restraint and wrongful
confinement, which are crimes against the human body and personal liberty. These
provisions penalise unlawful obstruction and illegal detention of a person.

OBJECT OF SECTIONS 126–127

The objectives of these provisions are:

1. To protect freedom of movement

2. To prevent illegal detention and coercion

 3. To safeguard personal liberty

4. To maintain public order and individual security

SECTION 126 – WRONGFUL RESTRAINT

Meaning

Wrongful restraint means voluntarily obstructing a person so as to prevent that person from
proceeding in any direction in which he has a lawful right to proceed.

Essential Ingredients

1. Voluntary obstruction

2. Obstruction must prevent lawful movement

3. Absence of lawful justification

Temporary obstruction is sufficient to constitute the offence.

Punishment

• Simple imprisonment or fine or both.

Case Law

Kishori Lal v. Emperor – Even temporary obstruction amounts to wrongful restraint if it

prevents lawful movement.

SECTION 127 – WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

Meaning

Wrongful confinement is an aggravated form of wrongful restraint, where a person is

wrongfully restrained in such a manner as to prevent him from moving beyond certain
circumscribed limits.

Essential Ingredients

1. Wrongful restraint

2. Confinement within fixed boundaries

3. Complete restriction of movement

Punishment
 • Imprisonment or fine or both, with enhanced punishment compared to wrongful
restraint.

Case Law

State of Gujarat v. Keshavlal – Confinement need not be in a locked room; restriction within
limits is sufficient.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

Basis Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement

Nature Minor offence Aggravated offence

Movement Partial obstruction Complete restriction

Area Any direction Fixed boundaries

Gravity Less serious More serious

IMPORTANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1. Lawful authority is a defence (e.g., arrest by police)

2. Consent of the victim may negate liability in certain cases

3. Intentional obstruction is essential

4. Both offences are cognizable under criminal law

SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE PROVISIONS

• Protect individual liberty

• Prevent misuse of power

• Ensure freedom of movement

• Uphold constitutional values

• Maintain social order

CONCLUSION
Sections 126 and 127 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide statutory protection
against unlawful obstruction and illegal confinement. By distinguishing between wrongful
restraint and wrongful confinement, the BNS ensures proportionate punishment based on
the gravity of the offence. These provisions uphold the right to personal liberty, prevent
abuse of authority, and reinforce the rule of law in a democratic society.

Criminal Force and Assault

(Sections 128–136) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

INTRODUCTION

Protection of personal liberty, bodily integrity, and human dignity is a core function of
criminal law. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 128 to 136, deals with the
offences of criminal force and assault. These provisions punish acts where force is used or
threatened unlawfully, even if no actual physical injury is caused, thereby safeguarding
individuals from intimidation, coercion, and violence.

OBJECT OF SECTIONS 128–136

The objectives of these provisions are:

1. To protect bodily autonomy and freedom of movement

2. To penalise unlawful use or threat of force

3. To prevent intimidation and coercion

4. To maintain public peace and individual security

SECTION-WISE EXPLANATION

Section 128 – Criminal Force

Criminal force is said to be used when a person:

• intentionally uses force against another,

• without that person’s consent,

• in order to commit an offence, or

 • to cause injury, fear, or annoyance.

Actual injury is not necessary; intention and unlawful use of force are sufficient.

Case Law:
State of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad – Even minimal force amounts to criminal force if used
intentionally and unlawfully.

Section 129 – Assault

Assault consists of:

• any gesture or preparation,

• creating a reasonable apprehension,

• that criminal force is about to be used.

No physical contact is required to constitute assault.

Case Law:
Stephens v. Myers – Raising a clenched fist with intention to strike amounts to assault.

Section 130 – Assault or Criminal Force to Deter Public Servant from Duty

This section punishes assault or criminal force used:

• against a public servant,

• while discharging official duties,

• or to prevent lawful discharge of duty.

Case Law:
State of Haryana v. Ram Singh – Protection of public servants is essential for rule of law.

Section 131 – Assault or Criminal Force on Grave Provocation

Where assault or criminal force is committed due to sudden and grave provocation,
punishment may be reduced.

Case Law:
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – Grave and sudden provocation must be immediate
and reasonable.
Section 132 – Assault or Criminal Force Otherwise than on Grave Provocation

Applies when assault or criminal force is committed without lawful excuse or provocation.

Section 133 – Assault or Criminal Force in Attempt to Commit Theft

Punishes use of force while committing or attempting to commit theft.

Case Law:
Om Prakash v. State of U.P. – Use of force during theft aggravates criminal liability.

Section 134 – Assault or Criminal Force in Attempt to Wrongfully Confine

Where force is used to illegally restrain or confine a person.

Section 135 – Assault or Criminal Force to Compel to Do an Act

Criminal force used to compel a person to:

• do something against his will, or

• omit to do a lawful act.

Case Law:
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K – Coercive acts violate personal liberty under Article 21.

Section 136 – Punishment for Criminal Force and Assault

This section prescribes punishments for offences under Sections 128–135, depending on
gravity and circumstances.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL FORCE

Basis Assault Criminal Force

Physical Contact Not required Required

Nature Threat or attempt Actual use of force

Stage Preparatory Executory

Gravity Lesser Greater

SALIENT FEATURES

1. Covers both physical and psychological harm

2. Protects public servants and private individuals

3. Recognises intimidation as a punishable wrong

4. Emphasises intent and consent

5. Upholds constitutional values of liberty and dignity

CONCLUSION

Sections 128–136 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide a comprehensive legal
framework to deal with criminal force and assault. By criminalising both the use and threat
of unlawful force, the law ensures effective protection of personal liberty and public order.
These provisions play a crucial role in preventing violence, coercion, and intimidation,
thereby reinforcing the rule of law and human dignity in society.

Kidnapping, Abduction, Slavery and Forced Labour

(Sections 137–146) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**

INTRODUCTION

Kidnapping, abduction, slavery, and forced labour are serious offences against personal
liberty and human dignity. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 137 to 146,
provides a comprehensive framework to punish acts involving illegal taking, detention,
exploitation, trafficking, and forced labour of persons, especially women and children.
These provisions uphold the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and prohibit
begar and human trafficking under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

OBJECT OF SECTIONS 137–146

The objectives of these provisions are:

1. To protect personal liberty and freedom of movement

2. To prevent human trafficking and exploitation

3. To abolish slavery, forced labour, and bonded labour

 4. To safeguard vulnerable groups, particularly women and children

5. To ensure deterrent punishment for organised crimes

SECTION-WISE EXPLANATION

Section 137 – Kidnapping

Kidnapping is of two kinds:

1. Kidnapping from India – taking a person beyond the territorial limits of India without
consent.

2. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship – taking or enticing a minor or person of

unsound mind out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without consent.

Consent of a minor is immaterial.

Case Law:
State of Haryana v. Raja Ram – Taking a minor from lawful guardianship without guardian’s
consent constitutes kidnapping.

Section 138 – Abduction

Abduction involves:

• taking or compelling a person,

• by force, deceit, or coercion,

• to move from one place to another.

Unlike kidnapping, abduction applies to persons of any age and requires force or deceit.

Case Law:
Shyam v. State of Maharashtra – Abduction requires use of force or fraudulent means.

Section 139 – Kidnapping or Abduction for Murder

When kidnapping or abduction is done with intent to murder or knowing it likely to result in
murder.

Punishment:
Life imprisonment or death.
Case Law:
Vikram Singh v. Union of India – Kidnapping for murder is one of the gravest offences.

Section 140 – Kidnapping or Abduction for Ransom

Punishes kidnapping or abduction for:

• ransom,

• coercion,

• extracting unlawful demands.

Case Law:
Malleshi v. State of Karnataka – Demand of ransom is sufficient; actual receipt is not
necessary.

Section 141 – Kidnapping or Abduction to Compel Marriage or for Illicit Intercourse

Criminalises kidnapping or abduction of a person, particularly a woman, to:

• compel marriage,

• force or seduce to illicit intercourse.

Case Law:
Lata Singh v. State of U.P. – Forced marriage violates personal liberty and dignity.

Section 142 – Importation of Girl

Importing a girl below the prescribed age from outside India or within India for immoral
purposes is punishable.

Case Law:
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India – Strong measures required to prevent trafficking and sexual
exploitation.

Section 143 – Trafficking of Persons

Trafficking includes:

• recruitment,

• transportation,
 • harbouring or receipt of persons,

• for exploitation using force, fraud, coercion, or abuse of power.

Punishment:
Severe imprisonment; enhanced punishment for trafficking of children or repeated offences.

Case Law:
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India – Trafficking violates Articles 21 and 23;
rehabilitation is mandatory.

Section 144 – Exploitation of a Trafficked Person

Punishes anyone who knowingly exploits a trafficked person for:

• sexual exploitation,

• forced labour,

• slavery or similar practices.

Section 145 – Habitual Traffickers and Organised Trafficking

Provides enhanced punishment for:

• habitual offenders,

• organised trafficking networks.

Case Law:
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India – Forced labour is unconstitutional
and punishable.

Section 146 – Slavery and Forced Labour

Criminalises:

• holding a person as a slave,

• compelling a person to perform forced or bonded labour,

• practices similar to slavery.

Case Law:
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India – Bonded labour is a violation of human dignity and
Article 21.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

Basis Kidnapping Abduction

Age Minor / person of unsound mind Any person

Means Taking or enticing Force or deceit

Consent Guardian’s consent required Consent obtained by force/fraud

Nature Specific offence Continuing offence

SALIENT FEATURES

1. Strong protection of personal liberty

2. Recognition of trafficking and forced labour as organised crimes

3. Enhanced punishment for ransom, murder, and child trafficking

4. Alignment with constitutional mandates

5. Victim-centric and rehabilitative approach

CONCLUSION

Sections 137–146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provide a robust and
comprehensive legal framework to combat kidnapping, abduction, trafficking, slavery, and
forced labour. By imposing stringent punishment on offenders and recognising the
vulnerability of victims, especially women and children, these provisions uphold human
dignity, personal liberty, and constitutional morality. The BNS thus plays a vital role in
eliminating exploitation and ensuring justice in society.

Offences Against the State (Sections 147-158) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Introduction

Chapter VII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 147 to 158) deals with
"Offences against the State." These provisions replace Chapter VI (Sections 121 to 130) of
the old Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

These offences are considered the most serious because they threaten the very existence,
sovereignty, and security of the nation. The BNS has modernized these laws, most notably by
removing the term "Sedition" and introducing Section 152, which focuses on acts
endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

Section-wise Analysis with Case Laws

1. Waging War against the Government of India (Section 147)

• Provision: Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage
such war, or abets the waging of such war.

• Punishment: Death, or Imprisonment for Life + Fine.

• Key Concept: "Waging war" is not limited to conventional warfare. It includes

organized armed insurrection, mobilizing troops, or using violence to overthrow the
government.

• Case Laws:

o State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) [Parliament Attack Case]: The
Supreme Court held that the attack on the Parliament House resulted in the
death of security personnel and was a direct act of "waging war" against the
Government of India.

o Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) [26/11 Mumbai Attacks]: The

court held that foreign nationals can also be tried for waging war if their acts
are directed against the Indian State. Kasab was convicted for waging war
against India.

2. Conspiracy to Commit Offences under Section 147 (Section 148)

• Provision: Whoever conspires (within or outside India) to commit offences

punishable by Section 147, or conspires to overawe the Central/State Government by
means of criminal force.

• Punishment: Imprisonment for Life, or imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• Difference from IPC: This corresponds to Section 121A of the IPC. It makes the mere
agreement to wage war a punishable offence, even if no war actually takes place.

3. Collecting Arms with Intention of Waging War (Section 149)

• Provision: Collecting men, arms, or ammunition, or otherwise preparing to wage war

against the Government of India.

• Punishment: Imprisonment for Life or imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• Significance: This is a "preparatory" offence. Unlike most crimes where preparation is

not punishable, here it is, due to the gravity of the intent.
4. Concealing Design to Wage War (Section 150)

• Provision: Concealing the existence of a design (plan) to wage war against the
Government of India, intending to facilitate such war.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• Case Law:

o Navjot Sandhu Case: While acquitted of waging war, Navjot Sandhu (Afsan
Guru) was convicted under the corresponding IPC Section 123 (now Section
150 BNS) for concealing the conspiracy of the terrorists.

5. Assault on President, Governor, etc. (Section 151)

• Provision: Assaulting, wrongfully restraining, or overawing the President of India or

the Governor of a State to compel or restrain them from exercising their lawful
powers.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

6. Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India (Section 152) [Replaces
Sedition]

• The Major Change: This section replaces the controversial Section 124A (Sedition) of
the IPC. The word "Sedition" is dropped.

• Provision: Whoever excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, or

subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities, or endangers the
sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

o Means: By words (spoken/written), signs, electronic communication, or use of

financial means.

• Punishment: Imprisonment for Life, or imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

• Safeguard (Explanation): Comments expressing disapprobation (criticism) of

government measures without exciting secession or armed rebellion are NOT an
offence.

• Case Laws (Applicable Principles):

o Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of Sedition but limited it. The Court held that mere criticism
is not an offence; there must be an incitement to violence or public disorder.
This principle applies to interpreting Section 152 BNS to ensure it doesn't
violate Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech).
 o Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021): Journalists cannot be prosecuted for
sedition for critical reporting unless it incites violence.

7. Offences against Foreign States (Sections 153-155)

These sections maintain friendly relations with foreign powers.

• Section 153: Waging war against the government of any foreign State at peace with
India. (Punishment: Life Imprisonment or up to 7 years).

• Section 154: Committing depredation (plunder/attack) on territories of a foreign

State at peace with India.

• Section 155: Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned above.

8. Escape of State Prisoners (Sections 156-158)

These sections deal with Public Servants or individuals aiding the escape of a "State
Prisoner" (someone detained for crimes against the state).

• Section 156: Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of State or war to escape.
(Punishment: Life Imprisonment or up to 10 years).

• Section 157: Public servant negligently suffering such prisoner to escape.

(Punishment: Up to 3 years).

• Section 158: Aiding escape of, rescuing, or harbouring such prisoner.

Comparative Table: IPC vs. BNS

IPC BNS
Offence Key Change
Section Section

Waging War 121 147 Retained with similar punishment.

Conspiracy to
121A 148 Retained.
Wage War

Major Change: "Sedition" removed. Replaced by

Sedition 124A 152 "Acts endangering sovereignty." Focus shifts from
"disaffection against Govt" to "integrity of India."

Waging War on
125 153 Retained.
Foreign State

Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 maintains the core structure of "Offences against the
State" found in the IPC but modernizes the language and scope. The most significant shift is
in Section 152, which replaces the colonial-era Sedition law. It focuses on protecting the
"Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity of India" rather than merely the "Government," thereby
attempting to balance national security with the constitutional right to free speech, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Kedar Nath Singh judgment.

Chapter VIII (Sections 159-168) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, titled "Offences
relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force."

These sections correspond to Chapter VII (Sections 131-140) of the old Indian Penal Code
(IPC), 1860.

Overview & Objective

The primary objective of this chapter is to maintain the discipline, loyalty, and integrity of
the Armed Forces.

• Who is this for? Interestingly, these sections are primarily used to prosecute civilians
or persons not subject to military law.

• Why? Officers and soldiers are usually governed by their own special laws (Army Act,
Navy Act, Air Force Act). However, if a civilian incites a soldier to mutiny or helps a
deserter, the civilian cannot be tried under military law. They are tried under these
sections of the BNS.

Section-wise Explanation

1. Abetment of Mutiny (Sections 159 & 160)

These are the most serious offences in this chapter. "Mutiny" implies a collective
insurrection or revolt against military authority.

• Section 159 (Abetting mutiny or attempting to seduce from duty):

o Offence: Whoever abets (encourages/aids) an officer, soldier, sailor, or airman

to commit mutiny, OR attempts to seduce them from their allegiance (loyalty)
or duty.

o Punishment: Imprisonment for Life, or imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

 o Key Note: The mutiny does not need to happen for this punishment to apply.
The mere attempt to seduce a soldier from duty is punishable.

• Section 160 (Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed):

o Offence: If a person abets mutiny, and as a consequence, mutiny actually

takes place.

o Punishment: Death, or Imprisonment for Life, or imprisonment up to 10 years

+ Fine.

o Gravity: This is an aggravated form of Section 159 because the consequence

(mutiny) actually occurred.

2. Abetment of Assault on Superior Officer (Sections 161 & 162)

These sections deal with inciting violence against superior officers.

• Section 161 (Abetment of assault on superior officer):

o Offence: Abetting a soldier/sailor/airman to assault a superior officer who is

in the execution of his office.

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years + Fine.

o Condition: The assault need not actually happen.

• Section 162 (Abetment of assault, if assault is committed):

o Offence: If the assault is actually committed because of the abetment.

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

3. Offences relating to Desertion (Sections 163, 164 & 165)

"Desertion" means leaving the post permanently without permission.

• Section 163 (Abetment of desertion):

o Offence: Whoever abets an officer, soldier, sailor, or airman to desert the

service.

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or Fine, or both.

• Section 164 (Harbouring a deserter):

o Offence: Knowing that a person has deserted, if someone harbours

(hides/shelters) them.

o Exception: This does not apply if a wife harbours her husband.

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or Fine, or both.

 • Section 165 (Deserter concealed on merchant vessel):

o Offence: Specific to the Master (Captain) of a ship. If a deserter is found

hidden on board a merchant vessel, and the Master was negligent in not
discovering them.

o Punishment: Fine (Penalty not exceeding a specified amount).

4. Insubordination (Section 166)

• Offence: Abetting an act of insubordination (refusal to obey orders) by a soldier,

sailor, or airman.

• Requirement: The act of insubordination must actually be committed in

consequence.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months, or Fine, or both.

5. The Exemption Clause (Section 167)

• Provision: This section clarifies that persons who are already subject to the Army
Act, the Navy Act, or the Air Force Act are not to be punished under this Chapter of
the BNS.

• Reasoning: Military personnel have their own tribunals (Court Martial) and their own
strict codes. This safeguards against "Double Jeopardy" (being punished twice for the
same offence). This confirms that Chapter VIII BNS is primarily for civilians.

6. Wearing Soldier's Garb / Impersonation (Section 168)

• Offence: Whoever (not being a soldier/sailor/airman) wears any garb (uniform) or

carries any token used by the Armed Forces.

• Intention: The act must be done with the intention that it may be believed that they
are a soldier, sailor, or airman.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 months, or Fine up to ₹2,000, or both.

• Practical Use: This prevents fraudsters from dressing as army officers to cheat people
or gain unauthorized access to areas. (Note: Actors wearing uniforms for
movies/plays are generally exempt as they lack criminal intent to deceive the public
into believing they are actual soldiers).

Summary Table
Section
Offence Punishment
(BNS)

Life Imprisonment or 10
159 Abetting mutiny (even if not committed)
years

160 Abetting mutiny (if committed) Death, Life Imp, or 10 years

161 Abetting assault on superior Up to 3 years

162 Abetting assault on superior (if committed) Up to 7 years

163 Abetting desertion Up to 2 years

164 Harbouring a deserter Up to 2 years

Deserter on merchant ship (Master's

165 Fine
negligence)

166 Abetting insubordination Up to 6 months

167 Persons subject to Military Acts exempt (Exemption Clause)

168 Wearing soldier's garb (Impersonation) Up to 3 months / Fine

Important Case Laws for Offences Relating to Army, Navy & Air Force

1. On Jurisdiction & Exemption (Relating to Section 167 BNS / 139 IPC)

• Case: Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India (1982)

o Facts: The petitioners (military personnel) challenged the military justice

system, arguing it was arbitrary compared to civilian criminal courts.

o Held: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Army Act and the distinct
military justice system.

o Relevance to BNS: This case clarifies the "Exemption Clause" (Section 167
BNS). It established that military personnel are governed by their own special
laws (Army Act, etc.) and thus are exempt from being tried under this specific
chapter of the BNS/IPC, which is designed to prosecute civilians who interfere
with the military.

2. On Impersonation & Wearing Soldier's Garb (Relating to Section 168 BNS / 140 IPC)
 • Case: P.S. Senthil Kumar v. The State (High Court)

o Context: This case involved an individual posing as an officer to deceive

people.

o Principle: The court held that for an offence under this section (formerly 140
IPC), the mere wearing of a uniform is not enough; there must be a specific
intention to deceive people into believing the person is a soldier.

o Application: This is frequently applied in "Fake Army Recruitment Scams"

where fraudsters wear uniforms to con youth into paying for non-existent
army jobs.

• Case: Chandigarh Administration v. Private Security Agencies (Generic Reference)

o Context: Various High Courts have issued warnings to private security

agencies prohibiting them from wearing uniforms that closely resemble Army,
Navy, or Police uniforms.

o Relevance: Wearing such uniforms violates Section 168 BNS (140 IPC)
because it can confuse the public and create a false impression of authority.

3. On Abetment of Mutiny (Relating to Section 159 BNS / 131 IPC)

• Case: Vellore Mutiny & Historical Context

o Note: There are very few modern Supreme Court cases where a civilian was
charged solely for "Abetting Mutiny" under this section. Most such acts are
now tried under UAPA or Sedition (Section 152 BNS).

o Legal Principle: Courts have held that "Abetment" in this context does not
require the mutiny to succeed. If a civilian distributes pamphlets or
propaganda specifically targeting soldiers to make them disobey their
commanders, they are liable under Section 159 BNS, even if the soldiers
ignore them.

4. On Harbouring Deserters (Relating to Section 164 BNS / 136 IPC)

• Case: State of Punjab v. Major Singh (Generic Application)

o Principle: The courts have clarified that the "Exception" (where a wife is
allowed to harbour her husband) is strict. It does not extend to parents or
siblings. If a father hides his deserting son, the father is liable for
imprisonment under this section.

Here is a comprehensive answer structure for a 20-mark question on "Offences relating to

Elections" under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Q: Explain "Offences relating to Elections" (Sections 169-177) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. To ensure the purity of the electoral
process, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 devotes Chapter IX (Sections 169 to 177)
to election offences.

These provisions replace Chapter IX-A (Sections 171A to 171-I) of the old Indian Penal Code
(IPC). The objective is to criminalize acts that interfere with a voter's free will, such as
bribery, undue influence, impersonation, and spreading false information.

II. Section-wise Analysis (Sections 169-177)

1. Definitions (Section 169)

Before defining crimes, the BNS clarifies two key terms:

• "Candidate": A person who has been nominated as a candidate at any election.

• "Electoral Right": The right of a person to stand or not to stand as a candidate, or to

withdraw from being a candidate, or to vote or refrain from voting at an election.

2. Bribery (Section 170 & 171)

• Definition (Section 170): Bribery occurs when someone gives or accepts

"gratification" (reward/money/gift) to induce a person to exercise their electoral
right in a certain way (e.g., voting for X, not voting, or withdrawing candidacy).

o Includes: "Treating" (providing food/drink/entertainment).

• Punishment (Section 171):

o General Bribery: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

o Treating: Punishment is generally limited to a fine.

3. Undue Influence (Section 172)

• Concept: This is a serious offence where a candidate or agent interferes with the free
exercise of an electoral right.

• What constitutes Undue Influence?

o Violence/Injury: Threatening any candidate or voter with injury (physical or

reputational).
 o Divine Displeasure: Inducing a voter to believe that they will become an
object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure if they vote/don't vote a
certain way.

• Note: Mere canvassing or legitimate persuasion is not undue influence.

4. Personation at Elections (Section 173)

• Definition: Often called "Fake Voting." It occurs when a person applies for a voting
paper or votes in the name of any other person (whether living, dead, or fictitious) or
votes more than once in the same election.

5. Punishment for Undue Influence and Personation (Section 174)

• For Undue Influence: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

• For Personation: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

6. False Statement in Connection with Election (Section 175)

• Offence: Making or publishing a statement that is false (and known to be false)

regarding the personal character or conduct of a candidate.

• Intent: The intent must be to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election
(i.e., character assassination to lose votes).

• Punishment: Fine.

7. Illegal Payments in Connection with Election (Section 176)

• Offence: Keeping a public meeting or distributing advertisements/circulars to

promote a candidate without the general or special authority in writing of that
candidate.

• Punishment: Fine up to ₹500 (Small offence aimed at controlling unauthorized

campaign spending).

8. Failure to Keep Election Accounts (Section 177)

• Offence: Every candidate is required by law to keep a separate and correct account of
all expenditure incurred during the election. Failure to do so is a crime.

• Punishment: Fine up to ₹500.

III. Important Case Laws

Since BNS 2023 retains the substance of the IPC, the landmark judgments under IPC and the
Representation of People Act (RPA) are applicable for interpretation.
1. On Undue Influence (Section 172 BNS)

• Case: Baburao Patel v. Dr. Zakir Hussain (1968)

o Held: The Supreme Court held that mere canvassing or appealing to voters is
not undue influence. To constitute "Undue Influence," there must be an
element of compulsion or an attempt to interfere with the free will of the
voter.

• Case: Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017)

o Held: Though primarily under the RPA, this judgment reinforced that seeking
votes in the name of religion, race, caste, or community amounts to a
"corrupt practice." Under criminal law (BNS), if this amounts to threatening
"divine displeasure," it becomes Undue Influence.

2. On False Statements (Section 175 BNS)

• Case: Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh (1965)

o Held: The Supreme Court clarified that for a statement to be "false" under
this section, it must relate to the "personal character or conduct" of the
candidate (e.g., alleging he is corrupt or immoral). Attacks on a candidate's
public or political conduct (e.g., "He is a bad politician") are NOT offences;
they are part of democratic debate.

3. On Disclosure & Voter Rights (Linked to S. 172 Undue Influence)

• Case: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2013) [NOTA Case]

o Relevance: The Court held that free and fair elections require the voter to
have the right to express dissatisfaction. While not a direct criminal case, it
underscores the legal principle that "Undue Influence" includes preventing a
voter from making an informed, free choice.

IV. Summary Table

Offence BNS Section Punishment Key Element

Bribery 170 & 171 1 Year / Fine Giving/Taking gratification.

Undue Influence 172 & 174 1 Year / Fine Threatening injury or divine displeasure.

Personation 173 & 174 1 Year / Fine Voting as someone else.

False Statement 175 Fine Lying about personal character.

Offence BNS Section Punishment Key Element

Illegal Payment 176 Fine Unauthorized spending.

No Accounts 177 Fine Failure to maintain expense records.

V. Conclusion

Chapter IX of the BNS is crucial for maintaining the sanctity of the democratic process. By
criminalizing Bribery (S. 170), Undue Influence (S. 172), and Personation (S. 173), the law
ensures that the "Electoral Right" defined in Section 169 remains protected. The judiciary,
through cases like Kultar Singh, has balanced these penal provisions with the right to free
political speech, ensuring that while "character assassination" is punished, political criticism
remains free.

Here is a detailed and structured answer for a 20-mark question on "Offences relating to
Coin, Currency-Notes, Bank-Notes, and Government Stamps" under the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Q: Explain "Offences relating to Coin, Currency-Notes, Bank-Notes, and Government

Stamps" (Sections 178-188) of BNS, 2023.

I. Introduction

Chapter X of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 178 to 188) deals with
offences related to counterfeiting currency and government stamps.

These sections replace Chapter XII (Sections 230-263A) and the relevant currency sections
(489A-489E) of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC). The BNS has consolidated the previously
scattered sections for coins, stamps, and currency notes into unified provisions to simplify
the law and address the serious threat posed by Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) to the
national economy and security.

Objective: The primary aim is to protect the fiscal sovereignty of the State and ensure public
confidence in the monetary system.

II. Section-wise Analysis (Sections 178-188)

The BNS groups these offences based on the act (Counterfeiting, Possessing, Selling, etc.)
rather than separating coins and notes into entirely different chapters as the IPC did.

1. Counterfeiting (Section 178)

• Offence: Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of

counterfeiting any Coin, Government Stamp, Currency-note or Bank-note.

• Punishment: Imprisonment for Life, or imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• Key Change: This single section now covers coins, stamps, and currency notes, which
were previously separate under IPC (Sec 231, 255, 489A). This highlights that
counterfeiting any legal tender is equally serious.

2. Making or Possessing Instruments for Counterfeiting (Section 179)

• Offence: Making, mending, or performing any process to make any die, seal, or
instrument for the purpose of counterfeiting coins, stamps, or notes.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• Intent: The prosecution must prove the intent or knowledge that the instrument
would be used for counterfeiting.

3. Importing or Exporting Counterfeit Currency/Stamps (Section 180)

• Offence: Importing into India, or exporting from India, any counterfeit Coin, Stamp,
Currency-note, or Bank-note, knowing it to be counterfeit.

• Punishment: Imprisonment for Life, or imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• Context: This addresses cross-border smuggling of Fake Indian Currency Notes

(FICN), often linked to terrorism.

4. Using as Genuine (Uttering) (Section 181)

• Offence: Whoever sells, or delivers to another person, or attempts to use as genuine

any Coin, Stamp, or Note, knowing or having reason to believe that it is counterfeit.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• The Crux: This catches the "trafficker" or the person pushing fake notes into
circulation.

5. Possession of Counterfeit Currency/Stamps (Section 182)

• Offence: Possession of any forged or counterfeit Coin, Stamp, Currency-note, or

Bank-note.

• Condition: The person must have the intention to use it as genuine or that it may be
used as genuine.
 • Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

• Key Distinction: Mere possession without criminal intent (e.g., keeping a fake note as
a curiosity or by accident) is not an offence.

6. Making Documents Resembling Currency (Section 183)

• Offence: Making or using any document that looks like a currency note (e.g., "Toy
Notes" or promotional vouchers that look exactly like real money) which can deceive
people.

• Punishment: Fine.

• Strict Liability: The government can also order the destruction of such documents.

7. Offences Relating to Used Stamps (Section 184 & 187)

• Section 184 (Effacing writing): Removing a mark or writing from a Government

stamp (which shows it has already been used) with the intent to use it again.
(Punishment: Up to 3 years).

• Section 187 (Using used stamps): Using a stamp known to have been already used.

8. Offences by Mint Employees (Section 186)

• Offence: If a person employed in any Mint lawfully established in India does any act
ensuring the coin is of a different weight or composition than the standard fixed by
law.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

III. Important Case Laws

Since the BNS is a new statute (2023), courts rely on established principles from IPC cases
(Sections 489A-E and 230-255) to interpret these new sections, as the definitions of
"Counterfeit" and "Possession" remain similar.

1. On "Knowledge" and "Mens Rea" (Mental Intent)

• Case: Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001)

o Context: The accused was found with fake currency.

o Held: The Supreme Court held that mere possession of fake currency is not
sufficient for conviction. The prosecution must prove that the accused knew
or had reason to believe the notes were fake and intended to use them.

o Relevance to BNS: Applies to Section 182 (Possession). If a shopkeeper

unknowingly receives a fake note, they are not a criminal.
2. On Definition of "Counterfeit"

• Case: State of Kerala v. Mathai (1963)

o Principle: The court held that a counterfeit does not have to be an exact
replica. It is sufficient if the resemblance is such that a person of ordinary
prudence might be deceived. Slight differences that only an expert would
notice do not save the accused.

o Relevance to BNS: Applies to Section 178 (Counterfeiting).

3. On Trafficking vs. Possession

• Case: Gafoor v. State of Maharashtra (2018)

o Held: There is a distinction between a person who is part of a smuggling

racket (Trafficker) and a person who is merely found in possession. The courts
treat "Importing/Trafficking" (Section 180 BNS) much more harshly (Life
Imprisonment) than simple possession.

IV. Summary Table: Offence & Punishment

BNS Punishment
Offence Key Element
Section (Max)

Counterfeiting Life
178 Creating the fake.
(Coin/Note/Stamp) Imprisonment

179 Instruments 10 Years Making the machine/die.

Life
180 Import/Export Smuggling across borders.
Imprisonment

181 Uttering (Using as genuine) 10 Years Buying/Selling/Paying.

Intent to use must be

182 Possession 7 Years
proved.

186 Mint Employee Offence 7 Years Corruption inside the Mint.

V. Conclusion

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, by consolidating Sections 178-188, has streamlined the
laws regarding fiscal crimes. The legislature has maintained the high severity of punishment
(Life Imprisonment) for counterfeiting and trafficking, recognizing it as an act of "Economic
Terrorism." However, the judiciary, through precedents like Umashanker, ensures that
innocent possession without criminal intent is not penalized.

Here is a comprehensive and structured answer for a 20-mark question on "Offences against
the Public Tranquillity" under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Q: Explain "Offences against the Public Tranquillity" (Sections 189-197) of BNS, 2023 with
Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XI of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 189 to 197) deals with
offences that disturb the peace and safety of society at large, rather than just an individual.
These provisions were formerly contained in Chapter VIII (Sections 141-160) of the IPC.

The law recognizes that crimes committed by groups (mob violence) are more dangerous
than individual crimes. Hence, these sections introduce the principle of "Constructive
Liability" (Vicarious Liability), where a person can be punished for the acts of others in the
group.

II. Section-wise Analysis

1. Unlawful Assembly (Section 189)

• Definition: An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "Unlawful

Assembly" if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:

1. To overawe the Government or a Public Servant by criminal force.

2. To resist the execution of any law or legal process.

3. To commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence.

4. To take forcible possession of any property.

5. To compel any person to do what they are not legally bound to do (or omit
what they are entitled to do).

• Punishment:

o Being a member: Imprisonment up to 6 months or Fine.

o Being armed with deadly weapon: Imprisonment up to 2 years.

Case Law: Moti Das v. State of Bihar (1954)

 • Held: An assembly which was lawful initially may subsequently become "unlawful" if
the members develop a common unlawful object.

• Principle: The "Common Object" can be formed on the spur of the moment.

2. Constructive Liability of Members (Section 190)

• The Principle: This corresponds to the famous Section 149 of the IPC. It states that if
an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of
the common object, EVERY person who is a member of that assembly at that time is
guilty of that offence.

• Significance: This creates Vicarious Liability. If A, B, C, D, and E form a mob to beat X,

and A shoots X dead, all five are guilty of murder, even if the others did not touch a
weapon.

Case Law: Masalti v. State of U.P. (1965)

• Held: To convict a person under this section (constructive liability), they must be an
active member of the assembly with knowledge of the common object. Mere
innocent presence as a bystander is not enough.

3. Rioting (Section 191)

• Definition: Whenever force or violence is used by an Unlawful Assembly, or by any

member thereof, in prosecution of the common object, every member of such
assembly is guilty of the offence of Rioting.

• Equation: Unlawful Assembly + Force/Violence = Rioting.

• Punishment:

o Simple Rioting: Imprisonment up to 2 years.

o Armed Rioting (Deadly Weapon): Imprisonment up to 5 years (This replaces

Sec 148 IPC).

Case Law: Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955)

• Held: Violence is the essence of rioting. Without the use of force or violence by at
least one member, the offence remains "Unlawful Assembly," not "Rioting."

4. Promoting Enmity & Hate Speech (Section 196)

• Replaces: Section 153A of the IPC.

• Offence: Whoever, by words (spoken/written), signs, or electronic communication,

promotes or attempts to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-
will between different groups on grounds of:
 o Religion, Race, Place of birth, Residence, Language, Caste, or Community.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years.

• Aggravated Form: If committed in a place of worship, the punishment extends to 5

years.

Case Law: Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997)

• Held: To be an offence, the speech must refer to two distinct groups. Mere criticism
of a single community without reference to another group does not always amount
to promoting "enmity between groups."

5. Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration (Section 197)

• Replaces: Section 153B of the IPC.

• Offence: Making imputations (statements) that any class of persons (e.g., a religious
group) cannot bear true allegiance to the Constitution or that they should be denied
rights as citizens.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years (5 years in a place of worship).

6. Affray (Section 194)

• Definition: When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the
public peace, they are said to commit an Affray.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 month or Fine up to ₹1,000.

III. Distinctions: Riot vs. Affray

Feature Rioting (Sec 191 BNS) Affray (Sec 194 BNS)

Place Can be Private or Public. Must be a Public Place.

Number of
Minimum 5 persons. Minimum 2 persons.
Persons

Essential (Must have common Not Essential (Usually sudden

Common Object
object). quarrel).

Severity More serious (Up to 2-5 years). Less serious (Up to 1 month).

IV. Other Provisions

 • Section 192: Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot (Imprisonment up
to 1 year if riot happens).

• Section 193: Liability of owner/occupier of land on which an unlawful assembly is

held (aimed at landlords who allow their land to be used for mob gatherings).

• Section 195: Assaulting or obstructing a Public Servant when they are suppressing a
riot or affray.

V. Conclusion

Chapter XI of the BNS strikes a balance between the right to assemble (Article 19 of the
Constitution) and the maintenance of public order. By retaining the core principles of the
IPC—specifically Constructive Liability (Section 190)—and strengthening the provisions
against Hate Speech (Section 196), the BNS aims to tackle both physical mob violence and
the ideological "trigger" of communal disharmony effectively.

Case Law Summary for Exam:

1. Moti Das v. State of Bihar (Unlawful Assembly can form instantly).

2. Masalti v. State of UP (Active membership required for liability).

3. State v. Papathy (Affray requires a public place; fighting in a private garden is not
Affray).

Here is a detailed and structured answer for a 20-mark question on "Offences by or relating
to Public Servants" under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Q: Explain "Offences by or relating to Public Servants" (Sections 198-205) of BNS, 2023

with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 198 to 205) deals with
offences committed by or against Public Servants. These provisions replace Chapter IX
(Sections 166-171) of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Objective:

Public servants hold a position of trust. This chapter aims to ensure probity, discipline, and
accountability in public service. It punishes public servants who abuse their power, disobey
the law to hurt others, or engage in corruption (other than bribery).
 • Note: The offences of "Bribery" (taking money for work) are primarily covered under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, not the BNS. The BNS focuses on
misconduct, negligence, and impersonation.

II. Section-wise Analysis (Sections 198-205)

1. Public Servant Disobeying Law (Section 198)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 166.

• Offence: Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the
law regarding how they should conduct themselves, intending to cause injury to any
person.

• Punishment: Simple Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

• Example: A police officer knowingly refusing to accept a valid complaint just to

harass the complainant.

2. Public Servant Disobeying Direction of Law (Section 199)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 166A.

• Offence: This is a stricter section introduced to ensure police accountability. It

punishes a public servant who:

1. Knowingly disobeys a direction of law prohibiting their attendance at any

place (e.g., investigating officer visiting a place they are barred from).

2. Fails to record any information (i.e., fails to file an FIR) regarding cognizable
offences like Rape, Acid Attack, Molestation, etc.

• Punishment: Imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years + Fine.

Landmark Case Law: Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014)

• Held: The Supreme Court held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognizable
offence. Failure to register such an FIR makes the police officer liable for punishment
under this section (formerly 166A IPC, now Section 199 BNS).

3. Punishment for Non-Treatment of Victim (Section 200)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 166B.

• Offence: Whoever, being in charge of a hospital (Public or Private), contravenes the

provisions of Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
(formerly 357C CrPC).
 • Requirement: All hospitals must immediately provide first-aid or medical treatment
(free of cost) to victims of Acid Attack, Rape, and Sexual Assault.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

4. Framing Incorrect Document to Cause Injury (Section 201)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 167.

• Offence: A public servant charged with the preparation of a document (e.g., a map,
report, or charge sheet) who frames it incorrectly, knowing that it will cause injury to
any person.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.

• Example: A Patwari (Revenue Officer) intentionally altering land records to show a

farmer's land belonging to someone else.

5. Public Servant Unlawfully Engaging in Trade (Section 202)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 168.

• Offence: Whoever, being a public servant, is legally bound not to engage in trade, but
engages in trade.

• Punishment: Simple Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

• Objective: To prevent Conflict of Interest. A tax officer cannot run a business

because they might evade their own taxes.

6. Public Servant Unlawfully Buying or Bidding for Property (Section 203)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 169.

• Offence: A public servant who is legally prohibited from purchasing certain property
(e.g., property being auctioned by their own department) but buys or bids for it (in
their own name or via a proxy).

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both. The property is also

confiscated.

7. Personating a Public Servant (Section 204)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 170.

• Offence: Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing
that they do not hold such office, and does any act in such assumed character.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.

 • Key Element: Mere bragging is not enough; they must "do an act" (e.g., trying to
collect a fine, stopping a car).

Case Law: P.S. Senthil Kumar v. The State

• Principle: The court emphasized that the offender must have the intention to
deceive people into believing they are a public servant and must perform an act
using that false authority.

8. Wearing Garb or Carrying Token of Public Servant (Section 205)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 171.

• Offence: Whoever, not being a public servant, wears any garb (uniform) or carries
any token (badge/ID) resembling that used by a public servant.

• Intent: With the intention that it may be believed that they belong to that class of
public servants.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both.

• Example: A private security guard wearing a uniform identical to the Police to scare
people.

III. Summary Table: Offences & Punishment

BNS Section Offence Punishment (Max) Key Element

198 Disobeying Law 1 Year Intent to cause injury.

199 Disobeying Direction 2 Years Failure to file FIR.

200 Non-Treatment 1 Year Hospitals refusing victims.

201 Incorrect Document 3 Years Falsifying records.

202 Unlawful Trade 1 Year Trading while in service.

203 Unlawful Buying 2 Years Buying auctioned property.

204 Personation 2 Years Pretending to be an officer.

205 Wearing Garb 3 Months Fake Uniform/Badge.

IV. Conclusion
Chapter XII of the BNS acts as a watchdog over the bureaucracy. While the Prevention of
Corruption Act handles monetary bribery, Sections 198-205 of BNS handle the abuse of
authority and administrative misconduct.

The inclusion of Section 199 (Mandatory FIR) and Section 200 (Mandatory Treatment)
highlights the law's focus on making public servants (Police and Doctors) responsive to the
urgent needs of victims, as mandated by the Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari judgment.

Here is a comprehensive and structured answer for a 20-mark question on "Contempts of

the Lawful Authority of Public Servants" under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Q: Explain "Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants" (Sections 206-226) of

BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 206 to 226) deals with
offences that involve disrespecting the legal process or disobeying the lawful orders of public
servants.

These provisions replace Chapter X (Sections 172-190) of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The objective of this chapter is not just to protect the dignity of the Public Servant, but to
ensure the effective functioning of the State. If citizens can ignore summons, refuse to give
evidence, or disobey public orders (like curfew) without consequence, the administration of
justice and public safety would collapse.

II. Classification of Offences

For a 20-mark answer, it is best to group these 21 sections into four logical categories:

Category A: Avoiding Summons & Non-Appearance (Sections 206-209)

These sections punish those who try to evade the legal process (court or police notices).

1. Absconding to Avoid Service (Section 206):

o Offence: Hiding or absconding to prevent a summons or notice from being

served.

o Punishment: Up to 1 month prison (or 6 months if it’s a Court summons).

2. Preventing Service of Summons (Section 207):

 o Offence: Physically removing a summons stuck to a wall or preventing an
officer from serving it.

3. Non-attendance in Obedience to Order (Section 209):

o Offence: Intentionally failing to appear at a certain place and time when

legally bound by a summons/order (e.g., A witness failing to come to court).

o Punishment: Up to 1 month prison (or 6 months for Court proceedings).

Category B: Withholding or Giving False Information (Sections 210-217)

These sections ensure the state has accurate information to function.

1. Omission to Produce Documents (Section 210):

o Offence: Legally bound to produce a document/electronic record to a public

servant but intentionally failing to do so.

2. Furnishing False Information (Section 217):

o Replaces: Sections 177 & 182 of the IPC.

o Offence: Giving information to a public servant which the person knows to be

false, intending to cause the public servant to use their lawful power to the
injury of another person.

o Example: Making a fake call to the police about a bomb or a robbery to

harass a neighbor.

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months (or 2 years if it relates to an

offence).

Case Law: Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab (1962)

• Principle: The Supreme Court held that for the offence of "False Information," the
public servant to whom the information is given must be competent to act on it. If
you lie to an officer who has no jurisdiction to handle that matter, this section may
not apply.

Category C: Obstruction of Public Functions (Sections 218-222)

These sections protect public servants while they are executing their duty.

1. Obstructing Taking of Property (Section 218): Resisting the seizure of property by

lawful authority.

2. Obstructing Sale of Property (Section 221): Intentionally obstructing a sale of

property conducted by lawful authority (e.g., disrupting a government auction).

Category D: Disobedience to Public Orders & Threats (Sections 223-226)

This is the most critical category, frequently used in real-world scenarios (like Lockdowns or
Curfews).

1. Disobedience to Order Duly Promulgated (Section 223):

o Replaces: Section 188 of the IPC.

o Offence: Disobeying an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully

empowered to do so (e.g., Section 144 BNSS / 144 CrPC orders).

o Conditions for Conviction:

1. Knowledge of the order.

2. Disobedience of the order.

3. Consequence: The disobedience causes (or risks causing) obstruction,

annoyance, injury, or danger to human life/health/safety.

o Punishment: Up to 6 months (if danger to life/health) or 1 year.

o Significance: This was the primary section used during the COVID-19
Pandemic to punish lockdown violators.

2. Threat of Injury to Public Servant (Section 226):

o Replaces: Section 189 IPC.

o Offence: Threatening a public servant with injury to induce them to do (or

not do) any official act.

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years + Fine.

III. Important Case Laws & Legal Principles

Since BNS 2023 mirrors the IPC structure here, existing Supreme Court interpretations of IPC
Sections 172-190 apply directly to BNS Sections 206-226.

1. On Disobedience to Orders (Section 223 BNS / 188 IPC)

• Case: C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010)

o Facts: The case involved the violation of prohibitory orders (Section 144).

o Held: The Supreme Court laid down that an FIR cannot be mechanically
registered for this offence. The law requires a written complaint by the
concerned public servant under the procedural code (Section 195 CrPC, now
Section 215 BNSS). The court cannot take cognizance (start trial) on a simple
 police report (Charge sheet); the specific officer whose order was disobeyed
must complain.

• Case: Ram Samujh v. State (1967)

o Principle: Mere disobedience is not enough. The prosecution must prove that
the disobedience caused or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance, or
injury. If a person violates an order but causes no harm or risk, Section 223
(188 IPC) applies with difficulty.

2. On False Information (Section 217 BNS / 182 IPC)

• Case: Kedarnath v. State (2004)

o Held: If a person files a false complaint to the police knowing it is false, with
the intent that the police should harass the named person, they are liable
under this section. This safeguards innocent citizens from malicious
prosecution.

3. On Preventing Service of Summons (Section 207 BNS / 173 IPC)

• Case: State v. B.K. Pal

o Held: Refusal to accept a summons is not an offence under this section (it is
usually treated as "served"). However, physically preventing the officer from
affixing the summons or tearing it up constitutes the offence.

IV. Procedural Restriction (Crucial for 20 Marks)

You must mention the Procedural Bar to get full marks.

• Section 215 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly 195 CrPC):

Courts cannot take cognizance of any offence under Sections 206 to 226 BNS (Contempt of
Lawful Authority) except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or their
superior.

• Why? Because these are offences against the authority of the public servant. If the
public servant themself does not feel offended or obstructed enough to complain,
the police/court should not interfere.

V. Summary Table
BNS Section IPC Equivalent Offence Punishment (Max)

206 172 Absconding to avoid summons 1 Month

209 174 Non-attendance (Skipping Court) 1 Month / 6 Months

210 175 Omission to produce document 1 Month / 6 Months

217 177/182 False Information to Public Servant 6 Months / 2 Years

223 188 Disobedience to Order (e.g., Curfew) 6 Months / 1 Year

226 189 Threatening Public Servant 2 Years

VI. Conclusion

Chapter XIII of the BNS acts as the shield for public administration. While Sections 206-210
ensure the procedural compliance of citizens (attending court, producing papers), Section
223 (Disobedience) acts as the primary tool for maintaining public order during
emergencies. The Supreme Court, through cases like C. Muniappan, has balanced this by
ensuring these powerful sections are not misused, mandating strict procedural compliance
(written complaints) for prosecution.

Explain "False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice" (Sections 227-269) of BNS,
2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 227 to 269) deals with
offences that corrupt or obstruct the administration of justice. These provisions replace
Chapter XI (Sections 191-229A) of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Objective:

The judicial system relies entirely on the truthfulness of witnesses and the integrity of
evidence. If witnesses lie (Perjury), evidence is destroyed, or criminals are harboured, the
courts cannot function. This chapter punishes acts that pollute the stream of justice.

II. Classification of Offences

For a 20-mark answer, group these sections into five logical categories:

1. Giving and Fabricating False Evidence (Sections 227-237)

This is the core of "Perjury."

 • Giving False Evidence (Section 227):

o Definition: Whoever constitutes an offence if they:

1. Are legally bound by an oath or express provision of law to state the

truth.

2. Make a statement which is false, and which they either know/believe

to be false or do not believe to be true.

o Scope: Applies to oral evidence in court and written affidavits.

• Fabricating False Evidence (Section 228):

o Definition: Creating a false circumstance, making a false entry in a

book/record, or making a document containing a false statement.

o Intent: The intention must be that this false evidence may appear in a judicial
proceeding (or before a public servant/arbitrator) and lead the judge to form
an erroneous opinion.

o Example: Placing a gun in an innocent person’s bag to frame them.

• Punishment for False Evidence (Section 229):

o In Judicial Proceedings: Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

o In Other Cases: Imprisonment up to 3 years + Fine.

• Threatening Witnesses (Section 232):

o Offence: Threatening any person to give false evidence.

o Significance: This addresses the "Hostile Witness" problem.

2. Destruction of Evidence & Screening Offenders (Sections 238-243)

• Causing Disappearance of Evidence (Section 238):

o Replaces: Section 201 IPC.

o Offence: Knowing an offence has been committed, if a person causes

evidence to disappear (e.g., washing bloodstains, hiding a body) or gives false
information to screen the offender.

o Punishment: Depends on the gravity of the main offence (e.g., if the main
offence is punishable by death, this is punishable by 7 years).

3. False Charge of Offence (Sections 248-249)

• False Charge with Intent to Injure (Section 248):

 o Replaces: Section 211 IPC.

o Offence: Instituting criminal proceedings against a person knowing that there

is no just or lawful ground.

o Punishment: Up to 2 years (or 7 years if the charge is for a crime punishable

by death/life imprisonment).

o Concept: This punishes "Malicious Prosecution."

4. Harbouring Offenders (Sections 249-257)

• Harbouring (Section 253):

o Offence: Concealing or providing shelter/food to a person knowing they have

committed an offence, to prevent their arrest.

o Exception: This section does not apply if the harbouring is done by the
husband or wife of the offender.

• Harbouring Robbers/Dacoits (Section 257):

o Strict punishment (Rigorous Imprisonment up to 7 years) for harbouring

gangs of dacoits.

5. Disclosure of Identity of Victim (Section 269)

• Replaces: Section 228A IPC.

• Offence: Printing or publishing the name or any matter which may make known the
identity of a victim of certain offences (Rape, Gang Rape, Sexual Assault, POCSO,
etc.).

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years + Fine.

• Exceptions: Allowed only with the permission of the Court or the victim (if sound of
mind and major).

III. Important Case Laws

Since BNS 2023 retains the principles of the IPC, the following landmark judgments guide
the interpretation of these sections.

1. On False Evidence (Perjury) - Sections 227-229

• Case: Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000)

 o Held: The Supreme Court observed that "Perjury has become a way of life in
the law courts." The Court emphasized that witnesses who lie on oath must
be strictly punished to save the credibility of the judicial system.

• Case: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) [Best Bakery Case]

o Context: Key witnesses turned hostile due to threats.

o Held: The SC ordered a retrial, stating that the state must protect witnesses
so they can speak the truth. This supports the strict application of Section
232 BNS (Threatening witnesses).

2. On Destruction of Evidence - Section 238

• Case: V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala (2001)

o Held: To convict under this section (formerly 201 IPC), the prosecution must
prove:

1. A crime was actually committed.

2. The accused knew or had reason to believe the offence was

committed.

3. The accused caused evidence to disappear with the intent to save the
offender from legal punishment.

3. On False Charge/Malicious Prosecution - Section 248

• Case: Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain (1973)

o Held: This section is a safeguard against the abuse of the legal process. If a
person files a fake FIR just to harass an enemy, they are liable here.

4. On Identity of Victim - Section 269

• Case: Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019)

o Held: The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines. No person can print or
publish the name of a rape victim, even if the victim is dead. The bar applies
to police, media, and even court judgments (which must use pseudonyms).

IV. Distinctions & Key Concepts

Giving vs. Fabricating False Evidence

Feature Giving False Evidence (Sec 227) Fabricating False Evidence (Sec 228)

Creating an object, document, or

Method Oral statement or written affidavit.
circumstance.

Lying in the witness box ("I saw him

Example Planting a knife in someone's bag.
shoot").

Punishment Same (Sec 229). Same (Sec 229).

The "Hostile Witness"

• A witness who gives evidence against the party that called them.

• Under Section 232 BNS, threatening a person to become a hostile witness is a

specific offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years.

V. Summary Table

BNS Punishment
Offence Key Element
Section (Max)

227 Giving False Evidence -- Definition of Lying on oath.

228 Fabricating Evidence -- Definition of Planting evidence.

229 Punishment for above 7 Years If used in judicial proceeding.

232 Threatening Witness 7 Years Inducing perjury.

Disappearance of Screening offender (e.g., hiding

238 7 Years / 3 Years
Evidence body).

248 False Charge 2 Years / 7 Years Malicious FIR.

253 Harbouring Offender Varies Exception: Wife/Husband.

269 Disclosing Victim ID 2 Years Rape/Sexual assault victims.

VI. Conclusion

Chapter XIV of the BNS is the guardian of judicial integrity. By punishing Perjury (S. 229),
the law ensures that courts are not misled. By punishing Screening of Offenders (S. 238) and
Harbouring (S. 253), it ensures criminals cannot evade the law. The modern addition of strict
penalties for Threatening Witnesses (S. 232) and protecting Victim Identity (S. 269) reflects
the law's evolution towards a more victim-centric and robust justice system.

Explain "Offences affecting the Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency and Morals"
(Sections 270-297) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 270 to 297) deals with
offences that affect the collective well-being of society. These provisions replace Chapter XIV
(Sections 268-294A) of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Objective: Unlike crimes like murder or theft which target specific individuals, these offences
target the public at large. The law aims to maintain a standard of Public Health (preventing
disease/pollution), Safety (preventing rash driving), and Morals (preventing obscenity).

II. Classification of Offences

For a 20-mark answer, it is best to group these 28 sections into four logical categories:

Category A: Public Nuisance (Sections 270-273)

• Public Nuisance (Section 270):

o Definition: An act or illegal omission which causes any common injury,

danger, or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or
occupy property in the vicinity.

o Punishment: Fine up to ₹1,000 (Section 272).

o Note: Public Nuisance is not excused just because it is convenient for some
people.

Case Law: Ratlam Municipality v. Vardichand (1980) [Landmark]

• Held: The Supreme Court held that "Public Nuisance" (like open drains and sanitation
issues) cannot be ignored by the administration citing lack of funds. The right to a
clean environment is part of Article 21, and the court enforced strict liability under
nuisance laws.

• Negligent Act likely to spread Infection (Section 271):

o Offence: Negligently doing an act known to likely spread the infection of a

disease dangerous to life.

o Relevance: This was widely cited during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

 o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months or Fine.

• Malignant Act likely to spread Infection (Section 273):

o Offence: Maliciously doing an act to spread disease (intentional bio-terrorism

or reckless spreading).

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years.

Category B: Adulteration of Food & Drugs (Sections 274-278)

These sections protect public health from unsafe consumption.

• Adulteration of Food or Drink (Section 274): Adulterating food/drink to make it

"noxious" (harmful). (Punishment: Up to 6 months).

• Sale of Noxious Food or Drink (Section 275): Selling food known to be unfit for
consumption.

• Adulteration of Drugs (Section 276): Adulterating medicine to lessen its efficacy or

change its effect.

• Sale of Spurious Drugs (Section 277): Selling adulterated drugs or passing off one
drug as another.

Case Law: Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India (2016) [Milk Adulteration]

• Held: The SC emphasized strict implementation of laws against food adulteration

(especially milk), stating that the right to safe food is a fundamental right.

Category C: Rash Driving & Public Safety (Sections 279-289)

This is the most practically used part of this chapter in daily legal practice.

• Rash Driving or Riding on Public Way (Section 281):

o Replaces: Section 279 IPC.

o Offence: Driving any vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent

as to endanger human life.

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months + Fine.

• Negligent Conduct with Danger (Sections 283-289):

o Poison (S. 284): Negligence with poisonous substances.

o Fire/Combustibles (S. 285): Negligence with fire.

o Explosives (S. 286): Negligence with explosive substances.

o Machinery (S. 287): Negligence with machinery.

 o Animals (S. 289): Negligence with animals (e.g., a dog bite due to owner's
negligence).

Case Law: Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan (2012) [Rash Driving]

• Held: The Court distinguished between "Rashness" (recklessness) and "Negligence"

(failure to take care). Speed alone is not the criterion; the manner of driving in the
specific context (traffic, road condition) determines the offence.

Category D: Decency, Morals & Religion (Sections 292-297)

These sections regulate social conduct and morality.

• Obscenity (Sections 292-294):

o Sale of Obscene Books/Objects (Section 292): Selling, hiring, or circulating

obscene books, pictures, or drawings. (Exception: Art/Science/Religious
purposes).

o Obscene Acts and Songs (Section 294): Doing any obscene act in a public
place or singing obscene songs to the annoyance of others.

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 months (for acts/songs).

Case Law: Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965) [Lady Chatterley's Lover Case]

• Held: The Supreme Court adopted the "Hicklin Test"—if the matter tends to deprave
and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, it is obscene.

Case Law: Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014) [Modern View]

• Held: The SC moved away from the Hicklin Test to the "Community Standards Test."
Nudity in art or for a social cause is not obscenity unless it is Lascivious (appealing
purely to lust).

• Keeping Lottery Office (Section 295): Unauthorised lottery is a crime.

• Offences Affecting Religion (Grouped here in BNS concept, but technically distinct):
While sometimes discussed here, religious offences like injuring places of worship are
specific (Sections 298-302 BNS). However, Section 297 specifically deals with
Trespassing on Burial Places to wound feelings or offer indignity to a corpse.

III. Key Distinctions for Exams

1. Negligence vs. Rashness (Section 281)

• Negligence: A failure to perform a duty (e.g., forgetting to check brakes).

 • Rashness: Acting with the consciousness that a dangerous consequence may follow,
but hoping it won't (e.g., driving at 100kmph in a school zone).

2. Public vs. Private Nuisance

• Public Nuisance (Crime): Affects the community. Punishable under BNS.

• Private Nuisance (Tort): Affects a specific individual's enjoyment of land. Civil remedy
(Compensation) only.

IV. Summary Table

BNS Section IPC Equivalent Offence Punishment (Max)

270 268 Public Nuisance Fine (₹1,000)

271 269 Spreading Infection (Negligent) 6 Months

274 272 Adulteration of Food 6 Months

281 279 Rash Driving 6 Months

289 289 Negligence w/ Animals 6 Months

292 292 Obscene Books/Objects 2 Years (1st Conviction)

294 294 Obscene Acts/Songs 3 Months

297 297 Trespass on Burial Places 1 Year

Export to Sheets

V. Conclusion

Chapter XV of the BNS is essential for the smooth functioning of civil society. It balances
individual liberty with the "Greater Good." Whether it is preventing a pandemic (Section
271), ensuring road safety (Section 281), or maintaining public decency (Section 294), these
laws operate on the principle of "Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas" (Use your
property/rights so as not to injure your neighbor). The judiciary, through cases like Ratlam
Municipality and Aveek Sarkar, has dynamically interpreted these sections to adapt to
modern environmental and social standards.

Explain "Offences relating to Religion" (Sections 298-302) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.
I. Introduction

Chapter XVI of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 298 to 302) deals with
offences related to religion. These provisions replace Chapter XV (Sections 295-298) of the
old Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Objective:

India is a secular state where every citizen has the fundamental right to freedom of religion
(Article 25). However, this right is subject to "public order, morality, and health." The
objective of this chapter is to maintain Communal Harmony and Public Order. It punishes
acts that intentionally insult religious beliefs or defile sacred places, ensuring that the
religious sentiments of one community do not become a cause for violence or disorder.

II. Section-wise Analysis (Sections 298-302)

1. Injuring or Defiling Place of Worship (Section 298)

• Corresponds to: Section 295 IPC.

• Offence: Whoever destroys, damages, or defiles any place of worship or any object
held sacred by any class of persons.

• Intention (Mens Rea): The act must be done with the intention of thereby insulting
the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that such class is likely to
consider the destruction as an insult.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.

• Key Concept: "Defilement" does not necessarily mean physical destruction. It can
include ritual impurity (e.g., throwing flesh into a temple or mosque).

2. Malicious Acts Intended to Outrage Religious Feelings (Section 299)

• Corresponds to: Section 295A IPC.

• Significance: This is the most critical section, often referred to as India’s "Blasphemy
Law."

• Offence: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious
feelings of any class of citizens of India, insults or attempts to insult the religion or
religious beliefs of that class.

• Means: By words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, or electronic

communication.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.

 • Requirement: Mere criticism or satire is not an offence. The act must be "Malicious"
(evil intent) and "Deliberate" (planned).

3. Disturbing Religious Assembly (Section 300)

• Corresponds to: Section 296 IPC.

• Offence: Voluntarily causing disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the

performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

• Example: Intentionally playing loud music or shouting slogans right outside a church
during mass or a mosque during prayer to disrupt the proceedings.

4. Trespassing on Burial Places (Section 301)

• Corresponds to: Section 297 IPC.

• Offence: Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person or
insulting the religion of any person:

1. Trespasses in any place of worship or burial/cremation ground.

2. Offers any indignity to any human corpse.

3. Causes disturbance to persons assembled for a funeral.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

• Scope: This section protects the dignity of the dead.

5. Uttering Words to Wound Religious Feelings (Section 302)

• Corresponds to: Section 298 IPC.

• Offence: Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings
of any person, utters any word, makes any sound/gesture in the hearing/sight of that
person, or places any object in their sight.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

• Distinction: Unlike Section 299 (which deals with insulting a class or group publicly),
Section 302 deals with insulting a specific individual (even in private).

III. Important Case Laws (Crucial for 20 Marks)

Since the BNS retains the IPC structure, the Supreme Court judgments on IPC 295A apply
directly to BNS 299.
1. On Constitutionality & Reasonable Restriction (Section 299 BNS / 295A IPC)

• Case: Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957) (Constitutional Bench)

o Issue: The petitioner challenged the law (then Sec 295A IPC) arguing it
violated Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Speech.

o Held: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the law. It ruled that Article
19(2) allows reasonable restrictions in the interest of "Public Order."

o Principle: Intentional insults to religion tend to cause public disorder (riots).

Therefore, punishing such acts is constitutional. However, the Court clarified
that not every insult is an offence; only "aggravated forms" of insult
calculated to disrupt public order are punishable.

2. On "Deliberate and Malicious Intention" (Section 299 BNS)

• Case: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar (2017)

o Facts: A magazine depicted cricketer MS Dhoni as Lord Vishnu holding various

products. A case was filed for hurting religious sentiments.

o Held: The Supreme Court quashed the complaint.

o Principle: The Court reiterated that Section 295A (now 299 BNS) does not
penalize every act of insult or attempt to insult. It penalizes only those acts
where there is a "deliberate and malicious intention" to outrage feelings.
Careless or inadvertent acts are not crimes.

• Case: S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)

o Held: The Court held that expressing a personal opinion (even if controversial)
regarding morality or religion does not amount to an offence unless there is a
specific intent to incite hatred or violence.

3. On "Religion" (Section 298 BNS)

• Case: S. Veerabadran Chettiar v. E.V. Ramaswami Naicker (1958)

o Facts: The accused (Periyar) broke an idol of Ganesha. The defence argued it
was just a clay doll, not a consecrated idol.

o Held: The Supreme Court held that the word "object held sacred" is not
limited to idols in temples. Any object held sacred by a class of persons (e.g.,
Bible, Quran, Granth Sahib, or a specific idol) is protected. The courts must
respect the feelings of the believers, not just objective facts.

IV. Comparison: Section 299 vs. Section 302

Feature Section 299 (Old 295A) Section 302 (Old 298)

Written or Spoken words, signs,

Nature Primarily Oral words, sounds, gestures.
etc.

Insulting a Class/Community
Target Insulting a Specific Person (Private).
(Public).

Intent Deliberate & Malicious (Stricter). Deliberate (Less strict).

Severity More Serious (Up to 3 Years). Less Serious (Up to 1 Year).

Telling a person to their face: "Your God is

Example Publishing a book mocking a God.
false."

V. Conclusion

Chapter XVI of the BNS reflects the legislative intent to balance Freedom of Speech with the
Right to Religion. While Section 299 acts as a shield against hate speech that could trigger
communal violence, the judiciary (via Ramji Lal Modi) ensures it is not used as a sword to
stifle rational criticism or artistic expression. The law penalizes the "Malicious Intent" (Mens
Rea), not just the act itself.

"Offences against Property: Theft" (Sections 303-307) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XVII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (specifically Sections 303 to 307)
deals with the offence of Theft. These provisions replace Sections 378 to 382 of the old
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Objective:

Theft is the most basic offence against property. It involves the dishonest removal of
movable property from someone's possession without their consent. The BNS retains the
core definition of Theft from the IPC but introduces "Snatching" as a distinct aggravated
form of theft to address modern street crimes.

II. Definition of Theft (Section 303)

1. The Core Definition (Section 303(1))

"Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any
person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to
commit theft."

2. Essential Ingredients (The 5 Elements)

To constitute theft, five conditions must be met:

1. Dishonest Intention (Mens Rea): The intention must be to cause wrongful gain to
oneself or wrongful loss to another.

2. Movable Property: Theft can only happen with movable goods (money, watch, car,
etc.). Land or houses cannot be stolen (though soil or trees attached to land become
movable once severed).

3. Possession: The property must be taken from someone's possession. Ownership

does not matter.

o Example: If you steal your own watch from a repair shop to avoid paying the
bill, it is theft because the repairman had possession.

4. Without Consent: The taking must be without the consent (express or implied) of
the possessor.

5. Moving: The property must be moved in order to take it. Even a slight movement is
enough.

3. Explanations to Section 303(1)

• Electricity: A theft of electricity is considered theft of property.

• Animals: If you induce an animal to move (e.g., whistling to a dog so it follows you),
you have "moved" it for theft.

• Severance: Things attached to the earth (like a tree) become movable as soon as
they are cut.

4. Punishment for Theft (Section 303(2))

• General Theft: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.

• Repeat Offenders: In case of a second or subsequent conviction, the punishment

shall be rigorous imprisonment for not less than 1 year and up to 5 years.

• Community Service: For petty thefts (value less than ₹5,000) by a first-time offender,
the court may order Community Service instead of prison. This is a major reform in
BNS.
III. Aggravated Forms of Theft

The BNS classifies theft into more serious categories based on the location or method.

1. Snatching (Section 304)

• New Provision: This is a specific addition to BNS to tackle chain snatching and mobile
snatching.

• Definition: Theft is "snatching" if the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes

or grabs or secures or takes away from any person or from his possession any
movable property.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years + Fine.

2. Theft in a Dwelling House (Section 305)

• Corresponds to: Section 380 IPC.

• Offence: Committing theft in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling
or for custody of property.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

• Reason: A house is a place of safety; violating it is a more serious crime.

3. Theft by Clerk or Servant (Section 306)

• Corresponds to: Section 381 IPC.

• Offence: Theft committed by a clerk or servant of property in possession of their

master/employer.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

• Reason: Breach of trust makes the crime graver.

4. Theft Preparation for Death/Hurt (Section 307)

• Corresponds to: Section 382 IPC.

• Offence: Committing theft having made preparation for causing death, hurt, or
restraint (or fear thereof) in order to commit the theft or escape.

• Punishment: Rigorous Imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• Example: A pickpocket carrying a knife "just in case" he gets caught. Even if he

doesn't use it, the mere preparation makes it a serious crime.

IV. Important Case Laws

Since BNS retains the core definition from IPC, landmark IPC judgments are applicable.

1. On "Moving" & Temporary Taking

• Case: K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan (1957)

o Facts: Cadets took an aircraft from the academy without permission to fly to
Pakistan. They argued they didn't intend to keep it forever, just use it.

o Held: The Supreme Court held this was Theft.

o Principle:

1. "Taking out of possession" is key.

2. The taking need not be permanent. Even a temporary dispossession

with dishonest intent constitutes theft.

2. On "Possession" vs. Ownership

• Case: Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963)

o Facts: A government employee took a file from his office to show a friend,
intending to return it later.

o Held: Convicted for theft.

o Principle: Removing the file from the government's possession (even

temporarily) caused "wrongful loss" of the file's security/custody to the
government.

3. On "Consent"

• Case: State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath (1979)

o Principle: If consent is obtained by cheating or deceit, it is not valid consent.

However, that usually falls under "Cheating." For theft, the taking must be
initially non-consensual.

V. Distinctions & Key Concepts

Theft vs. Extortion vs. Robbery

Feature Theft (Sec 303) Extortion (Sec 308) Robbery (Sec 309)

Consent Without Consent With Consent (induced by fear) Either Theft or Extortion

Property Only Movable Movable or Immovable Usually Movable

Feature Theft (Sec 303) Extortion (Sec 308) Robbery (Sec 309)

Force No Force (Stealth) Fear of Injury Immediate Fear/Force

Community Service Reform

• Section 303(2) allows Community Service for petty theft (value < ₹5,000) if it is the
offender's first time. This aims to decongest prisons and reform minor offenders
rather than turning them into hardened criminals.

VI. Summary Table: Offences & Punishment

BNS Section Offence Punishment (Max) Key Element

303(2) Simple Theft 3 Years / Community Service Dishonest moving.

303(2) Repeat Theft 1 to 5 Years Habitual offender.

304 Snatching 3 Years Sudden/Forcible grabbing.

305 Theft in House 7 Years Human dwelling.

306 Theft by Servant 7 Years Breach of trust.

307 Theft + Prep for Hurt 10 Years Carrying weapon.

VII. Conclusion

The provisions of Theft (Sections 303-307) in the BNS modernize the law by acknowledging
"Snatching" as a specific menace and introducing "Community Service" for petty crimes.
However, the core jurisprudential elements—Dishonest Intention and Taking out of
Possession—remain the bedrock of the offence, as established in K.N. Mehra.

Q: Explain "Extortion" (Section 308) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Section 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deals with the offence of Extortion.
This single section consolidates the definition and various aggravated forms of extortion
which were previously scattered across Sections 383 to 389 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
1860.

Core Concept:
Unlike theft, where property is taken without consent, in Extortion, the victim consents to
give the property, but that consent is obtained wrongfully by putting the victim in fear of
injury (physical, mental, or reputational).

II. Definition & Essentials (Section 308(1))

1. The Definition

"Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other,
and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property, or valuable security... commits extortion."

2. Essential Ingredients

To constitute Extortion, the following elements must be proved:

1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury: The offender must threaten the
victim.

o Note: "Injury" is not just physical pain. Under law, it includes harm to body,
mind, reputation, or property.

2. Dishonest Inducement: The threat must be made to wrongfully gain property.

3. Delivery of Property: The victim must actually hand over (deliver) the property to
the offender because of that fear.

o Crucial Point: If there is no delivery, it is only an Attempt to commit extortion,

not actual Extortion.

Illustration:

A threatens to publish a defamatory article about Z unless Z gives him ₹50,000. Z, fearing
loss of reputation, pays the money. A has committed extortion.

III. Classification & Punishment (Consolidated under Section 308)

The BNS has simplified the law by grouping all forms of extortion under subsections of
Section 308.

BNS IPC
Nature of Extortion Punishment
Subsection Equivalent

Imprisonment up to 3
308(2) Simple Extortion Sec 384
years, or fine, or both.
BNS IPC
Nature of Extortion Punishment
Subsection Equivalent

Imprisonment up to 10 Sec
308(3) Threat of Death/Grievous Hurt
years + Fine. 386/3871

Threat of Accusation of Crime Imprisonment up to 10 Sec

308(4)2
(punishable with <10 years)3 years + Fine.4 388/3895

Threat of Accusation of Capital

Imprisonment for Life or Sec
308(5)6 Offence (Death/Life Imprison7ment
up to 10 years + Fine. 388/389
crimes)

• Key Reform: The BNS makes it easier to charge aggravated extortion (like
blackmailing someone by threatening to file a false rape case) by listing it clearly in
sub-sections (4) and (5).

IV. Important Case Laws

Since Section 308 BNS mirrors the definition of Section 383 IPC, established judgments
remain the authority.

1. On "Fear of Injury" (Reputation included)

• Case: Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1960)

o Facts: The accused took a photo of a girl and her naked lover. He threatened
to show the photo to the girl's father unless he was paid money.

o Held: The Supreme Court held this was Extortion.

o Principle: "Injury" includes harm to reputation. Threatening to expose a

scandalous photo puts the person in fear of injury to reputation, which is
sufficient for Extortion.

2. On "Delivery of Property"

• Case: Dhananjay v. State of Bihar (2007)

o Facts: The accused demanded money from a bus driver at gunpoint, but the
police arrived before the money was handed over.

o Held: This was Attempted Extortion, not Extortion.

o Principle: For the offence of Extortion to be complete, the actual delivery of

property is mandatory. If the act stops at the threat, it is merely an attempt.
3. On "Valuable Security"

• Case: R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1986)

o Context: Discussing what constitutes extortion by public servants.

o Held: Extortion can involve obtaining a signature on a blank paper or a

promise note. If the victim is forced to sign a document that can be converted
into a valuable security (e.g., a blank cheque), it amounts to extortion.

V. Distinction: Theft vs. Extortion

A common exam question is distinguishing these two property crimes.

Feature Theft (Sec 303 BNS) Extortion (Sec 308 BNS)

Taken without
Consent Taken with consent (wrongfully obtained).
consent.

Only Movable Movable or Immovable (e.g., signing a deed) or

Property
Property. Valuable Security.

Element of No force; relies on

Relies on fear/threat.
Force stealth.

Delivery The offender takes it. The victim delivers it.

VI. Conclusion

Section 308 of the BNS is a robust provision that covers everything from simple "protection
money" rackets to sophisticated "blackmail."

The most significant change in the BNS is the consolidation of all extortion penalties into one
section. By including threats to "reputation" (as seen in Romesh Chandra Arora) and threats
of "false accusation" (Subsections 4 & 5), the law effectively targets both physical coercion
and mental blackmail.

Exam Tip:

To score high, emphasize that "Delivery" is the deciding factor.

• Theft = Taking.

• Extortion = Delivering (under fear).

• Robbery = Theft/Extortion + Immediate Danger.

Q: Explain "Robbery and Dacoity" (Sections 309-313) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Sections 309 to 313 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deal with the aggravated
property offences of Robbery and Dacoity. These sections replace Sections 390 to 402 of
the old Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Core Concept:

Robbery and Dacoity are not independent offences; they are aggravated forms of Theft or
Extortion.

• Theft + Violence = Robbery.

• Extortion + Immediate Threat = Robbery.

• Robbery + 5 or more people = Dacoity.

II. Robbery (Section 309)

Definition: There is no "Robbery" without either Theft or Extortion. Section 309 defines
when these two become Robbery.

1. When Theft becomes Robbery (Section 309(1))

Theft is "robbery" if, in order to commit the theft, or in carrying away the stolen property,
the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person:

• Death or Hurt, or

• Wrongful Restraint, or

• Fear of instant death, instant hurt, or instant wrongful restraint.

o Example: A thief snatches a purse. If he simply runs, it is Theft/Snatching. If

he pushes the woman down (Hurt) or pulls a knife (Fear of instant hurt) to
escape, it becomes Robbery.

2. When Extortion becomes Robbery (Section 309(2))

Extortion is "robbery" if:

1. The offender is present before the person put in fear.

2. The threat is of instant death, hurt, or restraint.

3. The delivery of property happens then and there.

 o Example: Pointing a gun at someone and saying "Your money or your life" is
Robbery. (Threatening to kill their son next week is only Extortion).

3. Punishment for Robbery (Section 309(4) & (5))

• General: Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) from 3 to 10 years + Fine.

• Highway Robbery: If committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise,

imprisonment extends to 14 years.

• Attempt to Commit Robbery (Section 309(6)): RI up to 7 years.

III. Dacoity (Section 310)

1. Definition (Section 310(1))

Dacoity is simply Robbery committed by 5 or more persons.

• The Equation: Robbery + 5 or more persons (acting conjointly) = Dacoity.

• Conjointly: It means acting together. Even if only one person holds the gun and the
other four are keeping watch, all five are guilty of Dacoity.

2. Punishment for Dacoity (Section 310(2))

• Punishment: Imprisonment for Life, or RI up to 10 years + Fine.

• Why so harsh? Because organized gang violence is a greater threat to state security
than individual crime.

3. Dacoity with Murder (Section 310(3))

• Replaces: Section 396 IPC.

• Offence: If any one of the five dacoits commits murder in the course of the dacoity.

• Liability: Every single one of the dacoits is liable for the murder, even if the others
did not intend to kill anyone.

• Punishment: Death, or Imprisonment for Life, or RI up to 10 years.

IV. Preparation and Assembly (Sections 311-313)

These are unique sections because usually "Preparation" for a crime is not punishable.
However, due to the danger Dacoity poses, even preparing for it is a crime.

• Making Preparation for Dacoity (Section 311):

o Offence: Making any preparation for committing dacoity.

 o Punishment: RI up to 10 years + Fine.

o Example: Buying guns and maps to rob a bank (even if caught before entering
the bank).

• Gang of Dacoits/Thieves (Section 312):

o Offence: Belonging to a "Gang" of persons associated for the purpose of

habitually committing dacoity or robbery/theft.

o Punishment: Imprisonment for Life or up to 10 years (for Dacoity gang) / up to

7 years (for Theft gang).

• Assembly for Dacoity (Section 313):

o Offence: Whoever assembles (meets) for the purpose of committing dacoity.

o Punishment: RI up to 7 years + Fine.

V. Important Case Laws

1. On "Instant Fear" (Theft vs. Robbery)

• Case: Venu v. State of Karnataka (2008)

o Principle: The Supreme Court held that the distinguishing factor between
Theft and Robbery is the element of "fear" or "violence." If the snatching
happens so quickly that the victim has no time to feel fear or resistance, it is
Theft (or Snatching under BNS 304). If there is a struggle or threat, it is
Robbery.

2. On "Five or More Persons" (Robbery vs. Dacoity)

• Case: Ram Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. (1956)

o Facts: 6 people were charged with Dacoity. The court acquitted 3 of them due
to lack of evidence.

o Held: Since only 3 people remained convicted, the charge cannot be Dacoity.
It automatically converts to Robbery. You cannot have Dacoity with less than
5 people.

3. On Joint Liability (Dacoity with Murder)

• Case: Emperor v. Lashkar (1921)

o Principle: If five dacoits enter a house, and one dacoit shoots the owner
dead, the other four cannot say "We only came to rob, not kill." Under
 Section 310(3) (formerly 396 IPC), all are equally liable for the murder
because it happened "in the course of dacoity."

4. On Preparation (Section 311)

• Case: State v. Sadhu Singh (1972)

o Held: To convict for "Preparation," the prosecution must prove that the
assembly was for the specific purpose of committing dacoity. Mere gathering
of people with weapons is not enough; there must be evidence of a plan to
commit dacoity.

VI. Distinction Table

Feature Theft Extortion Robbery Dacoity

Consent No Yes (Induced) Irrelevant (Forced) Irrelevant

Fear of future Actual/Instant Actual/Instant

Violence None
injury injury injury

Number of
Any Any 1 to 4 5 or more
People

Place Any Any Any Any

Bank Heist (5+

Example Pickpocketing Blackmail Gunpoint mugging
men)

VII. Conclusion

The BNS maintains the severe treatment of Robbery and Dacoity. The most critical legal
aspect to remember is the "tipping point":

1. Theft tips into Robbery when Violence is used.

2. Extortion tips into Robbery when the threat is Instant.

3. Robbery tips into Dacoity when the Number of Offenders hits 5.

The introduction of Section 310(3) (Dacoity with Murder) in the BNS continues the IPC
legacy of imposing strict vicarious liability, ensuring that gang members police each other to
prevent lethal violence.
Q: Explain "Criminal Misappropriation of Property" (Sections 314-315) of BNS, 2023 with
Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Sections 314 and 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deal with the offence of
Criminal Misappropriation. These provisions replace Sections 403 and 404 of the old Indian
Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Core Concept:

Unlike Theft, where the initial taking of property is wrongful and without consent, in
Criminal Misappropriation, the property may come into the offender's possession innocently
or lawfully (e.g., finding a lost wallet or borrowing a book). The crime occurs subsequently
when the person changes their mind and dishonestly converts the property to their own use
instead of returning it.

II. Dishonest Misappropriation of Property (Section 314)

1. Definition

"Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both."

2. Essential Ingredients

To constitute an offence under Section 314, three elements must be proved:

1. Movable Property: The property must be movable.

2. Conversion to Own Use: The accused must use the property for themselves or sell
it/give it away.

3. Dishonest Intention (Mens Rea): This is the most crucial element. There must be an
intention to cause wrongful gain to oneself or wrongful loss to the owner.

3. The "Finder of Goods" (Explanation 2)

A unique aspect of this section deals with a person who finds lost property.

• Is finding a crime? No. Mere taking of property found (e.g., picking up a gold ring on
the road) is not an offence.

• When does it become a crime? It becomes misappropriation if the finder:

o Knows the owner, OR

o Has the means to discover the owner,

 o BUT does not take reasonable steps to find the owner and instead
appropriates the property.

• Reasonable Time: The finder is expected to wait a "reasonable time" for the owner
to claim it before using it. Using it immediately suggests dishonesty.

Illustration:

• Situation A: A finds a rupee coin on the highway. He does not know who it belongs
to. He keeps it. (No Offence).

• Situation B: A finds a cheque payable to "Bearer" with the owner's name on it. He
cashes it immediately without trying to contact the owner. (Criminal
Misappropriation).

III. Aggravated Form: Property of Deceased Person (Section 315)

1. The Offence

This section deals with the dishonest misappropriation of property belonging to a deceased
person at the time of their death.

• Scenario: A person dies. Before the police or legal heirs can take possession of their
belongings, someone steals them.

• Gravity: This is considered a more heinous crime because it exploits the

defenselessness of the dead.

2. Punishment

• General: Imprisonment up to 3 years + Fine.

• If by Clerk/Servant: If the offender was a clerk or servant of the deceased, the

punishment extends to 7 years. (Because they abused a position of trust).

IV. Key Differences: Theft vs. Criminal Misappropriation

This distinction is often asked in exams to test conceptual clarity.

Criminal Misappropriation (Sec 314

Feature Theft (Sec 303 BNS)
BNS)

The initial taking is dishonest The initial possession is often innocent

Initial Taking
and wrongful. or lawful.
 Criminal Misappropriation (Sec 314
Feature Theft (Sec 303 BNS)
BNS)

May be with consent (borrowed) or

Consent Taken without consent.
without (found).

Formation of Dishonest intent exists at the Dishonest intent arises subsequently

Intent time of taking. (after possession).

It is an invasion of another's No invasion; the offender is already in

Invasion
possession. possession.

Finding a wallet and later deciding to

Example Pickpocketing a wallet.
keep it.

V. Important Case Laws

Since Section 314 BNS mirrors Section 403 IPC, established judgments apply.

1. On "Dishonest Intention"

• Case: Ramaswami Nadar v. State of Madras (1958)

o Facts: The accused (a prize winner) took a cheque intended for him but which
had a slight error in the name. The prosecution alleged misappropriation.

o Held: The Supreme Court acquitted him.

o Principle: To convict for misappropriation, the prosecution must prove that

the accused was dishonest. If the accused genuinely believed the property
was his or that he had a right to take it, there is no "Mens Rea" (Guilty Mind),
and thus no crime.

2. On "Conversion to Own Use"

• Case: Sardar Singh v. State of Haryana (1977)

o Principle: Mere retention of property is not enough. The accused must do

some act that shows they have "converted" it to their own use (e.g., selling it,
pledging it, or consuming it).

o Application: If an employee keeps a company laptop for a few extra days, it is

not misappropriation. If he sells it to a second-hand shop, it is Section 314.

3. On "Finder of Goods"

• Case: U. Dhar v. State of Jharkhand (2003)

 o Held: The court emphasized that disputes over ownership (e.g., two people
claiming the same machinery) are civil disputes. Using criminal law (Section
314/403) to settle civil property claims is an abuse of the legal process.

VI. Conclusion

Sections 314 and 315 of the BNS protect property rights even when the property is not
strictly "stolen" in the traditional sense. These laws ensure that if a person lawfully acquires
property (by finding it or borrowing it), they cannot abuse that position to deprive the true
owner of their rights.

The key to identifying this offence for your exam is the "Subsequent Change of Intention"—
the moment an honest finder becomes a dishonest keeper, Section 314 is attracted.

"Criminal Breach of Trust" (Section 316) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deals with the offence of Criminal
Breach of Trust (CBT).

This single section is a significant consolidation and modification of the old Indian Penal
Code (IPC). It replaces Sections 405 to 409 of the IPC. While the definition remains largely
the same, the BNS has unified the general offence and its aggravated forms (by clerks,
carriers, public servants) into one section and increased the punishment for the general
offence.

Core Concept:

Criminal Breach of Trust occurs when a person is legally "entrusted" with property (given
possession based on trust) but subsequently dishonestly misappropriates it or uses it in
violation of the legal contract/direction.

II. Definition (Section 316(1))

1. The Statutory Definition

"Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over
property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law... commits
criminal breach of trust."

2. Essential Ingredients
To constitute an offence under Section 316, the following elements must be proved:

1. Entrustment: The accused must be "entrusted" with property or have "dominion"

(control) over it. This implies a relationship of confidence/trust.

2. Property: It can be movable or immovable property.

3. Dishonest Intention (Mens Rea): The accused must act dishonestly (to cause
wrongful gain/loss).

4. Misappropriation/Conversion: The accused must wrongfully use the property for

themselves or dispose of it against the terms of the trust.

Illustration:

• A is a warehouse keeper. Z leaves his furniture with A, paying a fee for storage. If A
dishonestly sells the furniture, A commits Criminal Breach of Trust.

III. Punishment & Classification (Sub-sections 2 to 5)

The BNS creates a hierarchy of punishment based on who commits the breach.

Sub- IPC
Offender Category Punishment
section Equivalent

General Public Imprisonment up to 5 years (Increased

316(2) Sec 406
(Anyone) from 3 yrs), or fine, or both.

Carrier / Warehouse
316(3) Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine. Sec 407
Keeper

316(4) Clerk or Servant Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine. Sec 408

Public Servant / Life Imprisonment or up to 10 years +

316(5) Sec 409
Banker / Agent Fine.

• Key Change: The general punishment has been enhanced from 3 years (IPC) to 5
years (BNS), reflecting the legislature's intent to treat breach of fiduciary duty more
strictly.

IV. Key Distinctions (Crucial for 20 Marks)

1. Theft vs. Criminal Breach of Trust

 • Theft: Property is taken out of possession without consent. (Possession is wrongful
from the start).

• CBT: Property is lawfully entrusted with consent. (Possession is lawful initially;

dishonesty comes later).

2. Criminal Misappropriation vs. Criminal Breach of Trust

• Misappropriation (S. 314): Property comes into possession by casualty/accident

(e.g., finding a lost wallet). There is no pre-existing relationship.

• CBT (S. 316): Property comes into possession by contract/trust (e.g., giving gold to a
goldsmith). There is a contractual relationship.

V. Important Case Laws

Since Section 316 BNS retains the core definition of IPC 405, landmark Supreme Court
judgments on "Entrustment" apply.

1. On Meaning of "Entrustment"

• Case: State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal (1968)

o Facts: The government sold cement to a contractor for a specific construction

work. The contractor sold it elsewhere.

o Held: The Supreme Court acquitted him of CBT.

o Principle: A "Sale" is not "Entrustment." Once the government sold the

cement, the contractor became the owner. A person cannot misappropriate
their own property. For CBT, the property must belong to someone else.

2. On "Dominion over Property" (Public Servants/Directors)

• Case: R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration (1962)

o Held: The Supreme Court held that "Dominion" is a wider term than
"Entrustment." Even if a Managing Director or Minister does not physically
hold the cash, they have "dominion" (control) over the funds. Diverting those
funds for personal use attracts Section 316(5) (formerly IPC 409).

3. On Matrimonial Property (Stridhan)

• Case: Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985)

o Issue: Can a husband be charged with CBT for keeping his wife’s Stridhan
(dowry/jewelry)?
 o Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that a husband does not become a joint
owner of the wife's Stridhan. He is merely a custodian/trustee. If he refuses
to return it or sells it without her consent, he is liable for Criminal Breach of
Trust.

4. On Partnership Firms

• Case: Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1965)

o Principle: A partner in a firm cannot usually be prosecuted for CBT regarding

partnership property because every partner is an owner of the whole.
However, if there is a special agreement entrusting specific assets to one
partner, CBT can apply.

VI. Conclusion

Section 316 of the BNS is the guardian of fiduciary relationships in India. Whether it is a bank
manager handling public money or a warehouse keeper holding goods, this law ensures that
"Trust" is not violated.

By increasing the general punishment to 5 years and retaining the Life Imprisonment clause
for Public Servants and Bankers, the BNS sends a strong message: The higher the trust, the
greater the liability.

Q: Explain "Stolen Property" and Offences relating to "Receiving Stolen Property" (Section
317) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deals with "Stolen Property" and
the various offences associated with receiving, retaining, or concealing it.

This single section consolidates five separate sections of the old Indian Penal Code (Sections
410 to 414 of IPC). The objective is to target the "market" for crime. If there were no
receivers (fences) to buy stolen goods, thieves would have no motivation to steal. Thus, the
law punishes the Receiver as severely (or sometimes more severely) as the Thief.

II. Definition of "Stolen Property" (Section 317(1))

1. The Statutory Definition

Property is designated as "Stolen Property" if its possession has been transferred by:
 1. Theft,

2. Extortion,

3. Robbery,

4. Cheating (Explicitly added in BNS; was implied in IPC),

5. Criminal Misappropriation, or

6. In respect of which Criminal Breach of Trust has been committed.

• Key Condition: It is immaterial whether the transfer or misappropriation took place

within or outside India.

• When it ceases to be Stolen: The moment the property comes back into the
possession of the original owner (or someone entitled to it), it ceases to be "stolen
property."

III. Classification of Offences & Punishment (Sub-sections 2 to 5)

The BNS categorizes the offence based on the nature of the crime and the offender's habit.

BNS Sub- IPC

Offence Punishment
section Equivalent

Dishonestly Receiving/Retaining Imprisonment up to 3

317(2) Sec 411
stolen property. years, or fine, or both.

Receiving property transferred via Life Imprisonment or up

317(3) Sec 412
Dacoity. to 10 years + Fine.

Habitually dealing in stolen property Life Imprisonment or up

317(4) Sec 413
(Professional Receiver). to 10 years + Fine.

Assisting in Concealing/Disposing of Imprisonment up to 3

317(5) Sec 414
stolen property. years, or fine, or both.

IV. Essential Ingredients for Conviction

To convict a person under Section 317(2) (General Receiving), the prosecution must prove
four elements (established in Trimbak v. State of M.P.):

1. Stolen Property: The property must be "stolen property" as defined in S. 317(1).

2. Possession: The accused must have been in possession of it.

 3. Recent Possession: The property must be found with the accused soon after the
theft (Doctrine of Recent Possession - Section 114 Evidence Act).

4. Knowledge/Mens Rea: The accused must have known or had reason to believe that
the property was stolen.

o Note: Mere negligence or carelessness is not enough. The belief must be

reasonable (e.g., buying a brand new iPhone for ₹2,000 from a stranger in a
dark alley suggests "reason to believe").

V. Important Case Laws

1. On "Reason to Believe" (Mens Rea)

• Case: Hiralal Babulal Soni v. State of Maharashtra (2025) [Recent SC Judgment]

o Facts: The accused was found in possession of gold bars linked to a bank
fraud.

o Held: The Supreme Court clarified that mere possession of stolen property is
not enough for conviction. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe the property was
stolen. Suspicion alone cannot take the place of proof.

2. On "Receiving" vs. "Retaining"

• Case: State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath (1979)

o Principle: The section uses two words: "Receives" and "Retains."

▪ Receiving: You know it is stolen at the moment you take it.

▪ Retaining: You took it innocently (e.g., a gift), but later found out it
was stolen and still kept it. Both are crimes.

3. On Presumption of Guilt

• Case: Limbaji v. State of Maharashtra (2001)

o Context: Under Section 114 (Illustration a) of the Evidence Act, if a person is

found with stolen goods shortly after a theft and cannot explain it, the court
may presume they are either the thief or the receiver.

o Held: This presumption is optional. If the accused gives a plausible

explanation (e.g., "I bought it from a shop with a receipt"), the burden shifts
back to the police to prove the receipt is fake.
VI. Distinction: Section 317(2) vs. Section 317(3)

Section 317(2) (Simple

Feature Section 317(3) (Dacoity Receiving)
Receiving)

Predicate Theft, Extortion, Robbery,

Dacoity (Gang Robbery).
Offence Misappropriation.

Knowledge Knows it came from Dacoity OR knows the

Knows it is "stolen property."
Required giver belongs to a Gang of Dacoits.

Punishment Up to 3 years. Life Imprisonment or 10 years.

Severity Less Serious. Very Serious (Anti-Gang measure).

VII. Conclusion

Section 317 of the BNS acts as a critical deterrent against the monetization of crime. By
explicitly adding "Cheating" to the definition of Stolen Property in Section 317(1), the BNS
broadens the scope to cover modern white-collar crimes where assets are transferred via
fraud.

The judiciary, through cases like Hiralal Babulal Soni (2025), continues to ensure that
innocent buyers are not harassed, emphasizing that "Guilty Knowledge" is the essence of
this crime.

Q: Explain "Cheating" (Sections 318-319) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Sections 318 and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deal with the offence of
Cheating. These provisions consolidate the multiple sections of the old Indian Penal Code
(IPC Sections 415 to 420). Most notably, the infamous Section 420 IPC (Cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property) is now covered under Section 318(4) of the BNS.

Objective: The law aims to punish deception. While a simple breach of contract is a civil
wrong, "Cheating" is a criminal wrong because it involves a fraudulent intention from the
very beginning to deceive someone and cause them harm.

II. Section 318: Cheating (Definition & Forms)

Section 318 is the master section that defines cheating and prescribes punishments for its
various forms.

1. Definition of Cheating (Section 318(1))

"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so

deceived to deliver any property... or to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes... damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'."

2. Essential Ingredients

To constitute "Cheating," the following elements must be satisfied:

1. Deception: The accused must deceive someone (making them believe something
false is true).

2. Inducement: The deception must induce (convince) the victim to do something.

3. Delivery/Act: The victim must either:

o Deliver property (e.g., give money), OR

o Consent to retain property, OR

o Do/Omit to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise.

4. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): The intention must be dishonest or fraudulent at the time
of making the promise.

5. Damage/Harm: The act must cause damage to the victim’s body, mind, reputation,
or property.

Illustration: A intentionally deceives Z by falsely pretending to be a Civil Servant and

dishonestly induces Z to let him buy goods on credit (which he never intends to pay for). A
cheats Z.

3. Punishments under Section 318

The BNS simplifies the IPC's scattered sentencing into subsections:

BNS IPC
Offence Punishment
Section Equivalent

Imprisonment up to 3
Simple Cheating (No delivery of property, e.g.,
318(2) Sec 417 years, or fine, or
lying to get a job interview).
both.
BNS IPC
Offence Punishment
Section Equivalent

Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss

may ensue to person whose interest offender is Imprisonment up to 5
318(3) Sec 418
bound to protect (e.g., Banker/Agent cheating years + Fine.
client).

Cheating + Delivery of Property. (The most Imprisonment up to 7

318(4) Sec 420
common aggravated form). years + Fine.

Export to Sheets

III. Section 319: Cheating by Personation

This section deals with a specific method of cheating: pretending to be someone else.

1. Definition (Section 319(1))

A person is said to "cheat by personation" if they cheat by:

• Pretending to be some other person (Real or Imaginary).

• Knowingly substituting one person for another.

• Representing that they or another person is someone other than who they really are.

Illustration: A cheats by pretending to be B, a rich merchant, and takes a loan from a bank.
This is Cheating by Personation.

2. Punishment (Section 319(2))

• Imprisonment: Up to 5 years, or with fine, or both.

• (Note: This replaces IPC 419).

IV. Key Legal Distinctions (Crucial for 20 Marks)

Breach of Contract vs. Cheating

This is the most frequently asked concept. Every breach of contract is not cheating.

• Breach of Contract: A person intends to fulfill the promise initially but fails later due
to circumstances. (Civil Remedy).

• Cheating: The person never intended to fulfill the promise at the time of making it.
(Criminal Remedy).
The "Initial Intention" Test: The deception must exist at the inception of the transaction. If
the dishonest intention develops later, it is Criminal Misappropriation (S. 314) or Breach of
Trust (S. 316), but not Cheating.

V. Important Case Laws

1. On "Intention at Inception" (Breach of Contract vs. Cheating)

• Case: Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000)

o Held: The Supreme Court distinguished between mere breach of contract and
cheating. It held that for Cheating, it is necessary to show that the accused
had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
Mere failure to keep a promise subsequently does not amount to cheating.

o Relevance: This prevents people from filing criminal cases for civil business
disputes (e.g., bounced cheques or delayed payments).

• Case: Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal (1954)

o Facts: The accused bought goods promising to pay later but had no intention
to pay from the start.

o Held: This was Cheating, not just breach of contract, because the intention
was dishonest at the time of purchase.

2. On "Damage or Harm" (Mind & Reputation)

• Case: Baboo Khan v. State of U.P. (1961)

o Principle: "Damage or Harm" is not limited to money. If a person deceives a

woman into a mock marriage, he causes harm to her mind and reputation.
This falls under the definition of Cheating (Section 318 BNS / 415 IPC).

3. On Cheating by Personation (Section 319)

• Case: Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj

v. State of A.P. (1999)

o Facts: A "Godman" claimed to have divine healing powers and took money
from parents to cure a mute girl. He failed.

o Held: The Supreme Court held that falsely representing oneself as having
divine powers to extract money amounts to Cheating. It is an "inducement"
based on deception.
VI. Summary Table

BNS IPC
Offence Punishment Key Element
Section Section

318(1) Definition 415 -- Deception + Inducement.

Harm to mind/body (No property

318(2) Simple Cheating 417 3 Years
delivery).

Aggravated Delivery of Property / Altering

318(4) 420 7 Years
Cheating Valuable Security.

319 Personation 416/419 5 Years Pretending to be someone else.

Export to Sheets

VII. Conclusion

Sections 318 and 319 of the BNS are the primary tools to combat fraud in society. Whether
it is a "420" case (now 318(4)) involving financial scams or impersonation in exams (Section
319), these laws protect the honesty of transactions. The most critical takeaway for legal
practice, as established in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma, is that the Dishonest Intention
must exist at the very beginning; otherwise, the matter remains a civil dispute.

Q: Explain "Fraudulent Deeds and Dispositions of Property" (Sections 320-323) of BNS,

2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Sections 320 to 323 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deal with offences involving
the Fraudulent Disposition of Property. These provisions replace Sections 421 to 424 of the
old Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Objective:

While offences like Theft or Cheating protect an individual's property, these sections
specifically aim to protect the rights of Creditors. When a person owes money, their
property is technically the security for that debt. If a debtor dishonestly hides, transfers, or
undervalues their property to prevent creditors from seizing it, they commit a crime under
these sections.
Key Reform in BNS:

The most significant change is in Section 320, where the BNS has introduced a mandatory
minimum punishment of 6 months, which did not exist in the IPC.

II. Section-wise Analysis

1. Fraudulent Removal to Defeat Creditors (Section 320)

• Corresponds to: Section 421 IPC.

• Offence: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals, or delivers

property to any person, or transfers it without adequate consideration, intending to
prevent the distribution of that property among his creditors.

• Scope: This applies to insolvency or bankruptcy situations where the law requires
property to be distributed to pay off debts.

• Punishment: Imprisonment not less than 6 months but which may extend to 2 years,
or with fine, or with both.

o Note: The introduction of the "not less than 6 months" clause makes this law
stricter than the old IPC Section 421.

2. Fraudulent Prevention of Debt Availability (Section 321)

• Corresponds to: Section 422 IPC.

• Offence: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently prevents any debt or demand due to

himself from being made available for payment of his own debts.

• Explanation: If A owes money to B, and C owes money to A; A enters into a fake

compromise with C to forgive C's debt, just so that B cannot attach that money. A is
guilty under this section.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.

3. Fraudulent Execution of Deed with False Statement (Section 322)

• Corresponds to: Section 423 IPC.

• Offence: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently signs or executes a deed of transfer

(e.g., Sale Deed) which contains a false statement relating to:

1. The consideration (price) for the transfer.

2. The person for whose use or benefit it is really intended (Benami

transactions).
 • Objective: This prevents people from undervaluing property in documents to cheat
the government of stamp duty or to hide the actual value from creditors.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.

4. General Fraudulent Removal or Concealment (Section 323)

• Corresponds to: Section 424 IPC.

• Offence: This is a "Catch-all" section. It punishes whoever dishonestly or fraudulently

conceals or removes any property (of himself or others) or assists in doing so, or
dishonestly releases any claim.

• Difference from Section 320: Section 320 is specific to "preventing distribution

among creditors." Section 323 is wider and covers any fraudulent concealment, even
if no specific "creditor" distribution is currently in progress.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.

III. Comparison Table: IPC vs. BNS

IPC BNS
Feature Key Change
(Old) (New)

Mandatory Minimum Sentence of 6 months

Defeating Creditors Sec 421 Sec 320
added.

Preventing Debt Sec 422 Sec 321 Retained with similar punishment.

False Deeds Sec 423 Sec 322 Retained.

General
Sec 424 Sec 323 Retained.
Concealment

IV. Important Case Laws

Since the BNS (2023) provisions are virtually identical to the IPC (except for the punishment
in S. 320), the established judicial principles under IPC 421-424 are applicable.

1. On "Dishonest Intention" (Mens Rea)

• Case: Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963)

o Context: The Supreme Court defined "Fraudulently" under the IPC.

 o Principle: To prove an offence under these sections (specifically S. 322/323),
there must be an intention to deceive AND an intention to cause injury to
someone (like a creditor). Mere transfer of property to save it from ruin is not
a crime; transferring it to cheat a creditor is.

2. On "Without Adequate Consideration" (Section 320)

• Case: Ramaswami Ayyar v. King-Emperor (IPC Era)

o Principle: If a debtor transfers property to a genuine creditor to pay off a

specific debt, it is not an offence under this section, even if it leaves other
creditors unpaid. This is "Civil Preference." However, if he transfers it to a
friend for no money (sham transaction) just to hide it from the court, it is an
offence under Section 320 BNS.

3. On False Recitals in Deeds (Section 322)

• Case: Legal Remembrancer v. Ahi Lal Mandal

o Principle: The "False Statement" mentioned in Section 322 (IPC 423) must be
regarding the Consideration (Price) or the Beneficiary. A false statement
regarding the quality of the land does not attract this section.

V. Conclusion

The provisions of Sections 320-323 of the BNS act as a safeguard for the credit system of the
economy. They ensure that individuals cannot use legal instruments (like Sale Deeds) or
physical concealment to defeat the lawful claims of creditors.

The most vital update for students to remember is the harsher punishment in Section 320,
which now mandates a minimum of 6 months imprisonment, reflecting the legislature's
strict stance against bankruptcy fraud.

Here is a comprehensive and structured answer for a 20-mark question on "Mischief" under
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Q: Explain "Mischief" (Sections 324-328) of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Sections 324 to 328 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deal with the offence of
Mischief. These provisions consolidate and replace Sections 425 to 440 of the old Indian
Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
Core Concept:

Unlike Theft (taking property) or Extortion (inducing delivery), Mischief is purely about
destruction or damage. It covers acts where the offender intends to cause "Wrongful Loss"
by destroying property or diminishing its value/utility. This can range from scratching a car
key to burning down a house.

II. Definition of Mischief (Section 324)

1. The Statutory Definition (Section 324(1))

"Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or
damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such
change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously, commits 'mischief'."

2. Essential Ingredients

To constitute Mischief, three elements must be proved:

1. Mens Rea (Intention/Knowledge): The accused must have the intention or

knowledge to cause "wrongful loss or damage." (Mere negligence is usually not
mischief; e.g., accidentally breaking a glass is a tort, not a crime).

2. Act (Destruction/Change): There must be physical destruction or a change in the

property/situation.

3. Result (Diminished Value/Utility): The act must destroy or diminish the value or
utility of the property.

Illustrations (from Statute):1234

• A voluntarily throws Z's ring into a river. The ring is not stolen (A didn't keep it), but it
is lost to Z. This is Mischief.5678

• A burns a promissory note belonging to Z. This is Mischief.9101112

31314. Explanations1516

• Ownership Irrelevant: You can commit mischief against property bel 17onging to
anyone.

• Own Property: You can even commit mischief on your own property if it causes loss
to another.

o Example: A owner burns his own insured car to claim insurance money. He
commits mischief against the Insurance Company.
III. Punishment & Aggravated Forms (Sections 324-328)

The BNS classifies Mischief based on the value of damage and the method used.

1. General Mischief (Section 324)

• Simple Mischief: Imprisonment up to 6 months or Fine.

• Damage to Public/Govt Property: Imprisonment up to 1 year.

• Damage ₹20,000 - ₹1 Lakh: Imprisonment up to 2 years.

• Damage ₹1 Lakh or more: Imprisonment up to 5 years.

2. Mischief against Animals (Section 325)

• Offence: Killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering useless any animal.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 5 years, or fine, or both.

• (Note: BNS removes the old IPC distinction between animals of value ₹10 vs ₹50. Now
all animal cruelty falls here).

3. Mischief by Fire or Explosives (Section 326 & 327)

This is the most serious form (Arson).

• Section 326: Mischief by fire/explosive intending to cause damage to property

(including agricultural produce).

o Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years.

• Section 327: Mischief by fire/explosive intending to destroy a House (Place of

worship/Human dwelling) or a Rail/Aircraft/Vessel.

o Punishment: Life Imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years.

4. Mischief to Vessels (Section 328)

• Offence: Intentionally running a vessel (ship) aground or ashore with intent to

commit theft or misappropriation.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years.

IV. Important Case Laws

Since Section 324 BNS mirrors Section 425 IPC, the following landmark judgments are
applicable.
1. On "Wrongful Loss" & "Intention"

• Case: Arjun Singh v. State (1953)

o Principle: Motive is irrelevant, but Intention is crucial. If a person destroys

property in the bona fide exercise of a right (e.g., removing a fence they
genuinely believe is illegal), it is not Mischief because there is no dishonest
intention to cause wrongful loss.

2. On "Diminishing Value/Utility"

• Case: Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006)

o Facts: The accused removed engines from aircraft, rendering them unable to
fly.

o Held: This is Mischief. Even if the property is not destroyed, reducing its
utility (making a plane unflyable) is sufficient for conviction. The court also
held that ownership is not a defense if the act causes loss to a
creditor/hypothecator.

3. On Mischief to Own Property

• Case: Nagendra Nath Roy v. Bijoy Kumar Das (1991)

o Held: A person can be guilty of mischief even if they damage their own
property, provided it affects the rights of others.

o Example: If a landlord disconnects the water/electricity supply of a tenant, he

damages the "utility" of the house for the tenant. This is Mischief.

4. On Civil Disputes

• Case: Gopalakrishna Menon v. Raja Reddy (1983)

o Held: Courts must be careful not to criminalize civil disputes. If two neighbors
fight over a wall and one breaks it claiming it is his, it is primarily a civil
trespass, not necessarily criminal mischief, unless malicious intent is proved.

V. Distinction: Theft vs. Mischief

Feature Theft (Sec 303 BNS) Mischief (Sec 324 BNS)

Intent to acquire possession

Intention Intent to destroy/damage (Malice).
(Gain).

Property Only Movable Property. Movable or Immovable (e.g., House).

Feature Theft (Sec 303 BNS) Mischief (Sec 324 BNS)

Property is taken out of Property may remain in possession; only utility

Possession
possession. is lost.

Offender usually gains

Benefit Offender usually gains nothing (Destruction).
property.

VI. Conclusion

Sections 324-328 of the BNS protect society from vandalism, arson, and sabotage. The law
recognizes that "Property" is not just the physical object but its utility.

A significant update in BNS (Section 324) is the specific slab-based punishment for Public
Property damage, reflecting a stricter stance against rioters and vandals who target
government assets.

Q: Explain "Criminal Trespass" and its Aggravated Forms (Sections 329-334) of BNS, 2023
with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XVII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 329 to 334) deals with
offences involving the violation of a person's possession of property.

These provisions replace the Criminal Trespass sections (Sections 441-460) of the old Indian
Penal Code (IPC).

Core Concept:

Trespass is primarily a civil wrong (Tort). It becomes a Crime (Criminal Trespass) only when
the entry is accompanied by a specific Criminal Intention (Mens Rea) to commit an offence
or to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession.

Key Reform in BNS:

A significant structural change in the BNS is that the Definitions and Punishments for
Criminal Trespass and House-Trespass are now consolidated into a single section (Section
329), whereas in the IPC they were scattered across four different sections (441, 442, 447,
448).
II. Section 329: Criminal Trespass & House-Trespass

This is the foundational section.

1. Criminal Trespass (Section 329(1))

• Definition: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with
intent to:

1. Commit an offence (e.g., Theft, Murder); OR

2. Intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property.

o Note: It also includes lawfully entering but then unlawfully remaining there
with the above intent (e.g., hiding in a shop after it closes).

• Punishment (Section 329(3)): Imprisonment up to 3 months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or

both.

2. House-Trespass (Section 329(2))

• Definition: Criminal Trespass becomes "House-Trespass" if the offender enters into

or remains in any:

1. Building,

2. Tent, or

3. Vessel (Boat/Ship),

o Condition: Used as a human dwelling, or as a place of worship, or for the

custody of property.

• Explanation: The introduction of any part of the trespasser's body (e.g., putting a
hand through a window) is sufficient entry.

• Punishment (Section 329(4)): Imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine up to ₹5,000, or

both.

III. Aggravated Forms (Sections 330-334)

The law treats trespass more severely if it is done surreptitiously ("Lurking") or violently
("Breaking").

1. Lurking House-Trespass & House-Breaking (Section 330)

This section defines the methods of aggravation:

• Lurking House-Trespass: Committing House-Trespass while taking precautions to

conceal the trespass from the person who has a right to exclude the trespasser.
 • House-Breaking: Committing House-Trespass by effecting entry in a forceful or
specific way (e.g., through a passage not intended for entry, by breaking a lock, or by
using criminal force).

2. Punishment for Lurking/Breaking (Section 331)

• General Rule: Imprisonment up to 2 years + Fine.

• By Night (After Sunset, Before Sunrise): Imprisonment up to 3 years + Fine. (Because

the element of surprise and danger is higher at night).

3. House-Trespass to Commit Offence (Section 332)

• Corresponds to: Section 451 IPC.

• Offence: Committing House-Trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with

imprisonment (e.g., Adultery, Theft).

• Punishment:

o General: Imprisonment up to 2 years.

o If the offence intended is Theft: Imprisonment up to 7 years.

4. House-Trespass after Preparation for Hurt (Section 333)

• Corresponds to: Section 452 IPC.

• Offence: Committing House-Trespass having made preparation for causing hurt to

any person, or for assaulting/wrongfully restraining any person.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years + Fine.

• Gravity: This is one of the most serious forms of trespass (often used for home
invasions with weapons).

5. Aggravated Lurking/Breaking (Section 334)

• Scope: Deals with Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking in order to commit an

offence punishable with imprisonment (similar to S. 332 but with the
"Lurking/Breaking" element).

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years (if Theft: 10 years).

IV. Essential Ingredients & Analysis

To convict under these sections, the following must be proved:

 1. Possession, Not Ownership: The essence of the crime is the violation of actual
possession. Even if the owner forcibly enters a tenant's house to throw them out
illegally, the owner commits Criminal Trespass.

2. Intent (Mens Rea) is Crucial: Mere entry without permission is Civil Trespass. It
becomes Criminal only if the specific intent (to commit
offence/intimidate/insult/annoy) is present.

V. Important Case Laws

1. On "Criminal Intent" vs. "Civil Trespass"

• Case: Mathri v. State of Punjab (1964)

o Facts: The accused entered the premises with a warrant to execute a decree,
but the warrant was technically defective.

o Held: The Supreme Court held that they did not commit Criminal Trespass.

o Principle: The intention was to execute a legal process (Bona Fide claim of
right), not to "intimidate, insult or annoy." Even if the entry was unlawful by
civil law, it lacks the Mens Rea for criminal law.

2. On "Intention" vs. "Knowledge"

• Case: State of Calcutta v. Abdul Sukar (1966)

o Principle: The Court distinguished between "Intention" and "Knowledge."

Mere knowledge that one’s entry might cause annoyance is not enough; the
dominant intention must be to cause annoyance.

o Example: If a person enters a house secretly to have consensual intercourse

with an adult woman living there, his intent is love/lust, not to "annoy" the
father. Thus, it may not be Criminal Trespass (depending on the facts).

3. On Definition of "House" (Section 329(2)/333)

• Case: Sonu Choudary v. State (Recent SC interpretation)

o Context: Discussing Section 452 IPC (now 333 BNS).

o Held: A "Public Restaurant" or "Shop" open to the public does not

automatically qualify as a "Human Dwelling" for the strict purpose of House-
Trespass unless it is used for custody of property or dwelling. Entering a
public place is usually not trespass unless one is barred or remains unlawfully.
VI. Distinction: Civil vs. Criminal Trespass

Feature Civil Trespass Criminal Trespass (S. 329 BNS)

Nature A Tort (Civil Wrong). An Offence (Crime).

Intent Irrelevant (Strict Liability). Essential (Must intend to annoy/commit offence).

Remedy Compensation (Damages). Punishment (Imprisonment/Fine).

Force Not required. Often implies a threat to public order.

VII. Conclusion

Sections 329 to 334 of the BNS protect the sanctity of the home and the security of
possession.

The BNS has simplified the legal framework by grouping the definitions and punishments for
basic trespass in Section 329, making the law easier to administer. However, the courts (as
seen in Mathri) continue to ensure that this criminal law is not misused to settle civil
property disputes, insisting on the proof of "Criminal Intent" as the deciding factor.

Q: Explain "Offences relating to Documents and to Property Marks" (Sections 335-350) of

BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XVIII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 335 to 350) deals with
offences related to falsifying documents (Forgery) and counterfeiting property marks. These
provisions replace Chapter XVIII (Sections 463-489) of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Objective:

In a civilized society, documents (contracts, wills, degrees) are the basis of property rights
and legal relations. This chapter protects the integrity of documents and the authenticity of
commercial marks. The most significant offence here is Forgery, which involves creating a
false document to commit fraud.

Part A: Forgery (Sections 335-345)

1. Making a False Document (Section 335)

Before defining Forgery, the law defines how a document becomes "false." A person is said
to make a false document if they dishonestly or fraudulently:

1. Makes/Signs/Seals: Signs a document in the name of a fictitious person or another

person without their authority.

2. Alters: Alters a genuine document (e.g., changing ₹10,000 to ₹1,00,000) after it has
been executed.

3. Causes Innocent Execution: Causes a person to sign a document knowing that due to
intoxication or mental illness, the person does not know the contents.

Landmark Case Law: Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018)

• Principle: The Supreme Court held that "Making a false document" is essential for
forgery. Merely creating a document that contains false information (e.g., lying in a
resume) is not forgery. Forgery requires creating a document that purports to be
made by someone else. If you sign your own name to a false statement, it is cheating,
not forgery.

2. Forgery: Definition & Punishment (Section 336)

Definition: Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with the intent to
cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to
cause any person to part with property, commits Forgery.

The BNS has consolidated the definition and punishments for aggravated forms in Section
336 itself (unlike the scattered IPC sections).

• Simple Forgery (Section 336(2)): Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine.

• Forgery for harming reputation (Section 336(3)): Imprisonment up to 3 years.

• Forgery for Cheating (Section 336(4)): Imprisonment up to 7 years. (Commonly used

for fake degrees/certificates).

Case Law: Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009)

• Held: To constitute forgery, the document must be "false" within the meaning of
Section 335 (IPC 464). A person who executes a sale deed claiming to own a property
he doesn't own is not committing forgery if he signs as himself. He is lying (Cheating),
but not forging, because he is not impersonating the owner.

3. Forgery of Valuable Security / Wills (Section 340)

• Corresponds to: Section 467 IPC.

• Offence: Forging a document which is a Valuable Security (e.g., Promissory Note,

Sale Deed) or a Will, or an authority to adopt.
 • Punishment: Imprisonment for Life or imprisonment up to 10 years + Fine.

• Gravity: This is the most severe form of forgery because these documents transfer
valuable legal rights.

4. Using Forged Document as Genuine (Section 343)

• Corresponds to: Section 471 IPC.

• Offence: Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which

he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document.

• Punishment: Same as if he had forged the document himself.

• Relevance: Often, the person who uses the fake mark sheet is caught, not the one
who made it. This section punishes the user equally.

5. Falsification of Accounts (Section 344)

• Corresponds to: Section 477A IPC.

• Offence: A clerk or servant who willfully destroys, alters, or falsifies any book, paper,
or account of their employer to defraud them.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years.

• Use: Common in corporate fraud and embezzlement cases.

Part B: Property Marks (Sections 346-350)

This part deals with commercial deception, distinct from "Trade Marks" (which are covered
under the Trade Marks Act, 1999). BNS protects "Property Marks."

1. Definition of Property Mark

A mark used to denote that movable property belongs to a particular person. (e.g., A farmer
branding his cattle, or a specific sticker on luggage).

2. Tampering with Property Mark (Section 346)

• Offence: Whoever removes, destroys, defaces, or adds to any property mark with
intent to cause injury to any person.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year.

3. Counterfeiting a Property Mark (Section 347)

• Offence: Whoever marks any movable property or goods with a mark meant to cause
people to believe that the property belongs to a person to whom it does not belong.
 • Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years.

4. Selling Goods with Counterfeit Property Mark (Section 349)

• Offence: Selling, exposing for sale, or possessing for sale any goods having a
counterfeit property mark.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year.

• Defense: The accused can be acquitted if they prove they acted innocently and gave
all information about the source to the prosecutor.

5. Making False Mark on Receptacle (Section 350)

• Offence: Making a false mark on any package or container (receptacle) to deceive a

public servant or person about the nature/quality of the goods inside.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years.

• Example: Marking a box "Books" when it contains "Liquor" to evade tax/customs.

III. Distinction: Forgery vs. Cheating

Feature Forgery (Sec 336 BNS) Cheating (Sec 318 BNS)

Deceiving a person (can be

Essence Making a false document to deceive.
oral/conduct).

The inducement to deliver property is

Object The document itself is the crime.
the crime.

Scope Limited to written/electronic records. Wider (Words, acts, conduct).

Up to 2 years (Simple) / Life (Valuable Up to 3 years (Simple) / 7 years

Punishment
Security). (Property delivery).

IV. Summary Table

BNS Section Offence Punishment (Max)

335 Making False Document (Definition)

336(2) Simple Forgery 2 Years

336(4) Forgery for Cheating 7 Years

BNS Section Offence Punishment (Max)

340 Forgery of Will/Valuable Security Life / 10 Years

343 Using Forged Document Same as Forgery

344 Falsification of Accounts 7 Years

349 Selling Goods w/ Fake Mark 1 Year

350 False Mark on Package 3 Years

V. Conclusion

Chapter XVIII of the BNS is pivotal for maintaining trust in legal and commercial systems.

The BNS has simplified the structure of Forgery laws. The key takeaway from judicial
interpretation (like Sheila Sebastian) is the distinction between "telling a lie in a document"
and "making a false document." Only the latter—where the document purports to be what it
is not—constitutes Forgery.

Here is a comprehensive and structured answer for a 20-mark question on "Criminal

Intimidation, Insult, Annoyance, Defamation, etc." under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
2023.

Q: Explain "Criminal Intimidation, Insult, Annoyance, Defamation, etc." (Sections 351-357)

of BNS, 2023 with Case Laws.

I. Introduction

Chapter XIX of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 351 to 357) deals with
offences that affect a person's reputation and mental peace.

These provisions replace Chapter XXII (Sections 503-510) and Chapter XXI (Sections 499-
502) of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC).

• Key Change: The BNS has consolidated Defamation and Criminal Intimidation into
the same chapter.

• Note: The offence of "Insulting the Modesty of a Woman" (Old IPC 509) has been
moved to Section 79 of the BNS (Offences against Women/Children) and is not part
of this chapter anymore.
II. Section-wise Analysis

1. Criminal Intimidation (Section 351)

• Corresponds to: IPC Sections 503, 506, 507.

• Definition (Section 351(1)): Whoever threatens another person with injury to their
person, reputation, or property (or to someone they are interested in) with the
intent to:

1. Cause alarm to that person; OR

2. Cause that person to do any act which they are not legally bound to do; OR

3. Cause that person to omit to do any act which they are legally entitled to do.

o Example: A threatens to burn down B's shop if B does not withdraw a police
complaint.

• Punishment:

o Simple Intimidation: Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine.

o Aggravated Intimidation (Section 351(3)): Threatening Death, Grievous Hurt,

or destruction of property by fire: Imprisonment up to 7 years.

o Anonymous Intimidation (Section 351(4)): Intimidation by an anonymous

communication (hiding identity): Imprisonment up to 2 years in addition to
the punishment for the offence.

2. Intentional Insult to Provoke Breach of Peace (Section 352)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 504.

• Offence: Intentionally insulting a person (and knowing it is likely that such

provocation will cause him to break the public peace or commit an offence).

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine.

• Key Element: Mere abuse is not an offence. The insult must be severe enough to
likely cause violence.

3. Statements Conducing to Public Mischief (Section 353)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 505.

• Offence: Making, publishing, or circulating any statement, rumor, or report:

1. With intent to cause mutiny in the Army/Navy/Air Force.

 2. With intent to cause fear or alarm to the public, inducing them to commit an
offence against the State or public tranquility.

3. With intent to incite one class or community to commit an offence against

another.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years.

• Place of Worship: If committed in a place of worship, punishment extends to 5 years.

• Exception: It is not an offence if the person had reasonable grounds to believe the
statement was true and made it in good faith (e.g., a journalist reporting facts).

4. Divine Displeasure (Section 354)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 508.

• Offence: Inducing a person to do (or not do) something by making them believe that
they will become an object of Divine Displeasure if they do not obey.

• Example: A dharna where a person threatens to curse the victim with spiritual harm.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year.

5. Misconduct by Drunken Person (Section 355)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 510.

• Offence: A person who, in a state of intoxication, appears in a public place (or

trespasses) and causes annoyance to any person.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 24 hours or fine up to ₹1,000.

6. Defamation (Section 356)

• Corresponds to: IPC Sections 499, 500, 501, 502.

• Definition (Section 356(1)): Whoever, by words (spoken/intended to be read), signs,

or visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm the reputation of such person.

• Key Explanations:

o Deceased Persons: Defamation of a dead person is an offence if it hurts the

feelings of their family.

o Irony: Irony can be defamation (e.g., saying "He is an honest man"

sarcastically).

• Exceptions (Defences): Truth for public good, Opinion of Public Servant’s conduct,
Court proceedings, Merits of public performance, Censure by authority, etc.
 • Punishment (Section 356(2)): Simple Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both, or
Community Service.

o Reform: BNS explicitly adds "Community Service" as a punishment for

Defamation, recognizing it as a non-violent offence.

7. Breach of Contract to Serve Helpless Person (Section 357)

• Corresponds to: IPC Section 491.

• Offence: Being bound by a lawful contract to attend to the needs of a person who is
helpless (due to youth, mental illness, or disease) and voluntarily omitting to do so.

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 months or fine up to ₹5,000.

• Relevance: Applies to nurses, caregivers, or attendants of the elderly/sick.

III. Important Case Laws

Since BNS provisions mirror the IPC, established Supreme Court judgments apply.

1. On Defamation (Constitutional Validity)

• Case: Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)

o Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Criminal

Defamation (then IPC 499/500, now BNS 356). The Court ruled that the "Right
to Reputation" is part of Article 21 (Right to Life), and freedom of speech
(Article 19) does not give a license to destroy a citizen's reputation.

2. On Criminal Intimidation (Section 351)

• Case: Romesh Chandra Arora v. State (1960)

o Held: Threatening to ruin a person’s reputation (e.g., by releasing

compromising photos) to force them to pay money or do an act amounts to
Criminal Intimidation. The "injury" in this section includes injury to
reputation.

• Case: Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015)

o Principle: Mere outburst of anger or using abusive language does not amount
to Criminal Intimidation unless there is a clear intent to cause alarm.

3. On Intentional Insult (Section 352)

• Case: King Emperor v. Tarak Das Gupta

 o Held: Insulting someone in a private letter does not constitute an offence
under this section because there is no likelihood of a "breach of public peace"
when no one else hears it. The provocation must be such that the victim is
likely to react violently.

4. On Public Mischief (Section 353)

• Case: Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997)

o Held: This section (formerly IPC 505) requires that the statement must relate
to two distinct groups or communities. Mere criticism of a specific group
without pitting them against another does not always amount to "Public
Mischief" involving communal enmity.

IV. Summary Table

BNS
Offence Punishment (Max) Key Element
Section

Threat to
351 Criminal Intimidation 2 Years / 7 Years
person/reputation.

352 Intentional Insult 2 Years Provoking breach of peace.

Rumors causing
353 Public Mischief 3 Years / 5 Years
fear/mutiny.

354 Divine Displeasure 1 Year Spiritual threats.

355 Drunken Misconduct 24 Hours / ₹1,000 Annoyance in public.

2 Years / Comm.
356 Defamation Harming reputation.
Service

Breach of Care
357 3 Months Neglecting helpless person.
Contract

V. Conclusion

Chapter XIX of the BNS protects the dignity and peace of mind of individuals.

• Section 351 protects against fear (Intimidation).

• Section 356 protects against shame (Defamation).

• Section 353 protects society from dangerous rumors (Public Mischief).

The most significant reform in this chapter is the introduction of Community Service for
Defamation (Section 356), which moves away from purely punitive measures for speech-
related offences towards a more restorative approach.

Here is a comprehensive and structured answer for a 20-mark question on "Repeal and
Savings" under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Q: Explain "Repeal and Savings" (Section 358) of BNS, 2023.

I. Introduction

Section 358 is the final provision (Chapter XX) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. It
is arguably the most administratively important section because it manages the transition
from the colonial-era law to the new criminal code.

Objective:

When a new law replaces an old one, a legal vacuum or chaos can occur regarding pending
cases, ongoing investigations, and past crimes. Section 358 serves two purposes:

1. Repeal: It officially abolishes the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

2. Savings: It "saves" (preserves) the validity of actions, rights, and liabilities that legally
arose under the old IPC, ensuring that criminals don't escape justice just because the
law changed.

II. Structure of Section 358

1. The Repeal (Section 358(1))

• Provision: "The Indian Penal Code is hereby repealed."

• Effect: As of the date the BNS comes into force (July 1, 2024), the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ceases to be the active law for new offences. No new FIR can be registered
under IPC for crimes committed after this date.

2. The Savings Clause (Section 358(2))

This subsection begins with a Non-Obstante Clause ("Notwithstanding the repeal..."),

meaning that even though the IPC is gone, its ghost survives for specific purposes. The
repeal shall not affect:

• (a) Previous Operation: It does not invalidate anything "duly done or suffered" under
the IPC. (e.g., A sentence already served remains valid).
 • (b) Rights & Liabilities: Any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired or
incurred under the IPC remains intact. (e.g., A victim's right to compensation granted
under IPC continues).

• (c) Penalties & Punishments: Any penalty or punishment incurred for offences
committed against the IPC remains valid. (e.g., A fine imposed in 2023 must still be
paid).

• (d) Investigations & Remedies: Any investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy

regarding such penalty/punishment continues.

• (e) Ongoing Proceedings: Any such investigation or trial may be instituted,

continued, or enforced as if the BNS had not been passed.

o Crucial Implication: If a murder was committed in 2023 (before BNS), the trial
will continue under IPC Section 302, not BNS Section 103, even in 2025.

3. The Deeming Fiction (Section 358(3))

• Provision: Anything done or any action taken under the IPC shall be deemed to have
been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the BNS.

• Purpose: This ensures administrative continuity. For example, if a "Public Servant"

was appointed under a definition in the IPC, they are automatically recognized as a
"Public Servant" under the BNS without needing new paperwork.

4. Application of General Clauses Act (Section 358(4))

• Provision: The specific mention of matters in sub-section (2) does not prejudice the
general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

• Significance: Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is the "Universal Savings Clause" in
Indian law. It creates a statutory presumption that whenever an Act is repealed, it
does not affect pending legal proceedings unless the new Act explicitly says so.
Section 358(4) reinforces this protection.

III. Practical Application: IPC vs. BNS

The courts and police apply Section 358 based on the Date of Offence:

Applicable
Scenario Date of Offence Why? (Sec 358)
Law

The liability was "incurred" under IPC (Sec

Case A 15 June 2024 IPC
358(2)(b)).
 Applicable
Scenario Date of Offence Why? (Sec 358)
Law

IPC stands repealed for new acts (Sec

Case B 02 July 2024 BNS
358(1)).

Crime in 2023, Trial in Pending proceedings are "saved" (Sec

Case C IPC
2025 358(2)(e)).

IV. Conclusion

Section 358 is the bridge between the past and the future of India's criminal justice system.
It embodies the legal maxim "Nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non
praeteritis" (A new law ought to regulate the future, not the past).

By invoking the principles of the General Clauses Act, Section 358 ensures that the transition
from IPC to BNS is seamless, preventing any "miscarriage of justice" where an offender
might claim immunity due to the change in statutes.