📋 About BNS 2023
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024. It retains most IPC provisions with modifications, renumbered sections, and additions including community service as punishment, organised crime, petty organised crime, terrorist acts, and hit-and-run provisions. References to IPC case law remain valid as BNS provisions are substantially similar.
Unit 1 — Nature & Definition of Crime
1.1 What is a Crime?
A crime is an act or omission which is forbidden by law and punishable by the state. It is both: (a) legally prohibited, and (b) revolting to the moral sentiments of society (in most cases). The categories of crime are not closed — they evolve with society.
📜 Key Maxim
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea — The act alone does not make a man guilty unless his mind is guilty. (The act is innocent without a guilty mind.)
1.2 Distinction — Crime vs. Civil Wrong vs. Moral Wrong
| Feature | Crime | Civil Wrong (Tort) | Moral Wrong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature | Public wrong against State | Private wrong against individual | Violation of social/ethical norms |
| Remedy | Punishment (jail, fine, death) | Damages/injunction | Social disapproval, penance |
| Prosecution | By the State | By the aggrieved party | No legal proceeding |
| Standard of proof | Beyond reasonable doubt | Balance of probabilities | Not applicable |
| Intention | Mens rea generally required | Sometimes strict liability | Not legally relevant |
| Example | Murder, theft, rape | Negligence, trespass, defamation | Lying, ingratitude, overeating |
💡 Exam Tip — Crime vs Tort
An act may simultaneously be a crime and a tort — e.g., assault (criminal + tortious). As Sir James Stephen said: asking whether an act is a crime or tort is like asking of a man "Is he a father or son? For he may be both."
Unit 2 — Elements of Crime
2.1 Four Elements of Crime
- Human being — subject to legal obligation and capable of punishment
- Mens rea — guilty mind; criminal intent or knowledge
- Actus reus — guilty act or omission in furtherance of intent
- Injury — to another human being or to society at large
2.2 Mens Rea — The Mental Element
Mens rea is the state of mind indicating culpability. Though the word "mens rea" does not appear in BNS/IPC, its essence pervades all provisions through words like: dishonestly, fraudulently, voluntarily, intentionally, knowingly, maliciously, wilfully, recklessly, reason to believe.
Types of Mens Rea:
- Intention: Fixed purpose to achieve a desired result; foresees AND desires consequences
- Knowledge: Awareness that certain consequences will follow; subjective certainty
- Recklessness: Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
- Negligence: Failure to exercise care expected of a reasonable person
- Transferred Intention: Intent transfers to actual victim — A aims at B but hits C; still guilty of murder of C
📝 Transferred Intention — Illustration
A intends to kill B by placing poison in a glass of milk. C drinks the milk instead and dies. A is liable for murder of C under the principle of transferred intention. The guilty intent intended for B transfers to the actual consequence — death of C.
⚖️ Intention vs. Motive
| Feature | Intention | Motive |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Fixed purpose to bring about a result | Reason/impulse behind forming the intention |
| Legal relevance | Essential element of crime | Generally irrelevant to guilt (but relevant to sentence) |
| Example | A shoots B with intent to kill | A kills B for money (motive = greed) |
| Effect | Good motive does not excuse crime | Good motive may mitigate punishment |
2.3 Actus Reus — The Physical Element
Actus reus = the physical act/omission constituting the crime. It includes: (1) the voluntary act; (2) the circumstances; (3) the consequence (result). Involuntary acts (sleepwalking, reflex actions) generally do not constitute actus reus.
⚖️ State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722)
Facts: German national travelling by plane carrying gold in a concealed belt. Plane landed at Bombay. He was unaware of new Indian Foreign Exchange regulations requiring declaration of gold.Issue: Whether ignorance of law is a defence to strict liability offence?
Held (Majority): The offence under FERA was one of strict liability. Ignorance of law is no excuse (ignorantia juris non excusat). Mens rea was not required for this particular offence. The accused was found guilty.
Principle: Parliament may create strict liability offences where the statute's language and purpose indicate that mens rea is not required.
Unit 3 — Strict Liability in Criminal Law
3.1 Strict Liability
In strict liability offences, the prosecution need not prove mens rea — the act alone makes the accused liable. These are exceptions to the general rule.
When Does Strict Liability Apply?
- When statute clearly excludes mens rea requirement
- Public welfare/regulatory offences (food adulteration, traffic, pollution)
- Offences where harm is so serious that risk must be eliminated
- Where the statute uses language suggesting absolute prohibition
⚖️ State of MP v. Narayan Singh ([1989] 3 SCC 596)
Held: Where a statute creates an offence and the language suggests that mens rea is not required — it is a strict liability offence. The court must examine the purpose of the statute, the nature of the harm, and the language used. In regulatory offences concerning public health and safety, courts more readily imply strict liability. Mens rea may be excluded by express words or necessary implication.
⚖️ Mens Rea Offences vs. Strict Liability
| Feature | Mens Rea Offences | Strict Liability |
|---|---|---|
| Intent required | Yes — prosecution must prove | No — act alone suffices |
| Defence | Absence of intent is defence | Mistake/ignorance generally no defence |
| Examples | Murder, theft, rape | Food adulteration, FEMA violations, traffic offences |
| Rationale | Moral culpability essential | Public policy; difficulty of proving intent |
Unit 4 — Punishments under BNS 2023
4.1 Types of Punishments — Section 4 BNS
📜 Section 4 BNS — Punishments
The punishments to which offenders are liable under BNS are:
- (a) Death
- (b) Imprisonment for life
- (c) Imprisonment — rigorous or simple
- (d) Forfeiture of property
- (e) Fine
- (f) Community Service — NEW addition in BNS 2023
4.2 Death Penalty — Retention & Controversy
BNS 2023 retains the death penalty. It is prescribed for: murder (S.103), gang rape of minor (S.70), terrorism (S.113), waging war against India (S.147), etc.
⚖️ Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 957)
Held: Death penalty should be imposed only in the "rarest of rare cases" where the alternative — imprisonment for life — is unquestionably foreclosed. The Court laid down a framework for identifying such cases:
- Manner of commission: Extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly
- Motive: Totally worthless reason; for gain; cold-blooded
- Anti-social/socially abhorrent nature: Multiple murders, murders of innocent children, helpless women
- Magnitude: Large-scale murders; enormous proportions
- Personality of victim: Murder of public figure, person of high standing
4.3 Community Service — New Introduction (BNS 2023)
Community service is a new addition in BNS 2023 — not present in IPC 1860. It is prescribed for minor offences as an alternative to imprisonment:
- S.202 BNS — attempt to commit suicide (community service)
- S.226 BNS — unlawful assembly (up to community service)
- Other petty offences at court's discretion
4.4 Key Punishments — BNS Sections
| Section | Provision | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| S.4 | Types of punishments | Death, LifeImp, Imprisonment, Forfeiture, Fine, Community Service |
| S.5 | Commutation | Government may commute any punishment |
| S.6 | Fractions of terms | Less than 6 months = simple; 6 months+ may be rigorous |
| S.8 | Fine — default imprisonment | In addition to / in lieu of imprisonment |
| S.9 | Limit of punishment of offence | Multiple charges — concurrent/consecutive |
| S.11 | Solitary confinement | Rigorous imprisonment + not exceeding 3 months |
| S.13 | Enhanced punishment for prior convictions | Court may give enhanced sentence on repeat offenders |
Unit 5 — General Exceptions
5.1 Nature of General Exceptions
General Exceptions (Chapter III BNS) provide defences that excuse or justify an act which would otherwise be criminal. They are affirmative defences — the burden of proving an exception lies on the accused (S.105 Evidence Act), though prosecution must disprove beyond reasonable doubt once raised.
5.2 Unsoundness of Mind — Section 22 BNS
📜 Section 22 BNS (= S.84 IPC) — Unsoundness of Mind
"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."
Requirements for S.22 Defence:
- Unsoundness of mind at the time of the act (not before or after)
- Incapacity to know: (a) nature of act, OR (b) that it is wrong/contrary to law
- Medical insanity ≠ legal insanity — must meet the legal test above
- Burden on accused to prove on balance of probabilities
⚖️ Srikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra ([2003] 7 SCC 748)
Facts: Accused killed wife while suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Medical evidence showed he had delusions that wife was a witch.Held: The defence of insanity under S.84 IPC (= S.22 BNS) was established. The accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act due to schizophrenia. The test is whether, at the time of the act, the accused was capable of knowing the nature of the act and that it was wrong. Acquitted.
Principle: Medical evidence of mental illness does not automatically establish S.22; the court must determine the legal test of incapacity at the time of the act.
5.3 Intoxication — Sections 23 & 24 BNS
📜 Sections 23 & 24 BNS (= S.85, 86 IPC) — Intoxication
S.23 (Involuntary intoxication): Act done by a person who was intoxicated without his knowledge or against his will, and who at the time was incapable of knowing the nature of the act — is not an offence.S.24 (Voluntary intoxication): In cases of voluntary intoxication, a person is presumed to have the same knowledge as if he had not been intoxicated. BUT specific intent — where intent must be proved — may be affected by voluntary intoxication.
⚖️ Basdev v. State of PEPSU (AIR 1956 SC 488)
Facts: Accused, heavily drunk, shot a boy who refused to give up his seat at a feast.Held: Voluntary drunkenness is not a defence for a crime where intention is not the gist of the offence. But where the offence requires specific intent — voluntary intoxication may negate that specific intent. In this case, murder requires intention. Evidence of drunkenness was relevant to determine whether accused had the specific intent to kill.
Principle: Voluntary intoxication can be used to negate specific intent but cannot excuse crimes that require only general intent or no intent.
5.4 Right of Private Defence — Sections 34–44 BNS
📜 Sections 34–44 BNS (= S.96–106 IPC) — Private Defence
Every person has a right to defend:
(a) his own body and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body;
(b) the property — movable or immovable — of himself or any other person against theft, robbery, mischief, criminal trespass.Limitations:
- No right where there is time to seek public authority's protection
- Right extends only to harm necessary for self-defence
- Right does not extend to inflicting more harm than necessary
When Does Right Extend to Causing Death?
📜 Section 37 BNS — Extending to Causing Death (Body)
Right of private defence of body extends to causing death when there is reasonable apprehension of:
(a) Death or grievous hurt; (b) Rape; (c) Gratifying unnatural lust; (d) Kidnapping or abduction; (e) Wrongful confinement under such circumstances that cannot seek public authority in time; (f) Acid attack.
⚖️ Deo Narain v. State of UP (AIR 1973 SC 473)
Held: The right of private defence is a right of defence, not a right of offence. It is preventive, not punitive. There must be reasonable apprehension of danger. The court should not measure the right with golden scales. Minor injuries inflicted in self-defence which exceed what was strictly necessary do not necessarily take away the right — if the person acted in good faith in exercise of the right.
⚖️ Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab ([2010] 1 SCR 642)
Held: The right of private defence is available even if the accused was the aggressor initially, provided the apprehension of serious harm arose after his aggression was answered. The right is judged from the subjective perspective of the person claiming it — did he honestly and reasonably believe that harm was imminent? Court should not apply hindsight in assessing whether force was excessive.
⚖️ James Martin v. State of Kerala ([2004] 2 SCC 203)
Held: Four conditions for right of private defence: (1) no aggression on accused's part; (2) danger/apprehension of danger to body; (3) actual/imminent danger not imagined; (4) harm caused not disproportionate or in excess of necessity. The right is not available where the accused was the aggressor.
Unit 6 — Inchoate Crimes
6.1 Abetment — Section 45–60 BNS
📜 Section 45 BNS (= S.107 IPC) — Abetment
A person abets the doing of a thing who:
(1) Instigates any person to do that thing;
(2) Engages in a conspiracy with one or more persons to do that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of the conspiracy;
(3) Intentionally aids by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Key Points on Abetment:
- Abetment is complete even if the abetted act is not carried out
- The person abetted must intend to do the act (instigated must have criminal intent)
- Abettor's punishment: same as principal where abetted act committed; if not committed — lighter punishment
- Abetment by conspiracy ≠ criminal conspiracy (S.61 BNS); former requires an overt act
⚖️ Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 2828) — Abetment to Suicide
Facts: Wife committed suicide allegedly due to dowry harassment and cruelty by husband.Held: For abetment to suicide under S.306 IPC (= S.108 BNS), there must be: (1) instigation of person to commit suicide; (2) by direct act or incitement. Mere harassment or cruelty may not be sufficient — must be proximate cause that drove the deceased to suicide. There must be a live link between abettor's act and the suicide.
6.2 Criminal Conspiracy — Section 61 BNS
📜 Section 61 BNS (= S.120A IPC) — Criminal Conspiracy
When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done:
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means — they are guilty of criminal conspiracy.
Agreement itself is the offence — no overt act needed (exception: conspiracy to commit offence other than those punishable by death/life/2+ years imprisonment — some overt act required).
⚖️ State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC 2649) — Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case
Held: For criminal conspiracy, the essential ingredient is agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. Circumstantial evidence of conspiracy is permissible — direct evidence rarely available. Each conspirator is responsible for all acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Membership of conspiracy need not be proved by direct participation in every act.
6.3 Attempt — Section 62 BNS
📜 Section 62 BNS (General attempt provision)
Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by BNS with imprisonment, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one-half of the maximum imprisonment, or with fine, or both.
Tests for Attempt:
- Proximity Test: Act must be immediately and directly connected with the commission of the offence (closer than mere preparation)
- Last Act Test: Accused must have done the last act which, if uninterrupted, would have resulted in the crime
- Equivocality Test: Act is unequivocally referable to commission of crime
- Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae: Point of no return — before this point, abandon attempt; after = attempt
⚖️ Preparation vs. Attempt
| Feature | Preparation | Attempt |
|---|---|---|
| Stage | Earlier stage; arranging means | Later; actually doing something toward crime |
| Punishability | Generally not punishable | Punishable (S.62 BNS or specific sections) |
| Abandonment | No liability on abandonment | Abandonment after attempt ≠ no crime |
| Proximity | Remote from actual offence | Proximate; directly connected |
| Example | Buying poison to kill someone | Mixing poison in victim's food |
⚖️ State of Maharashtra v. Mohammad Yakub ([1980] 3 SCC 57) — Attempt
Held: An attempt to commit a crime begins where preparation ends. Accused must proceed to actually commit the crime. In determining whether an act constitutes attempt or preparation, the court must look at the proximity of the act to the completion of the crime, the acts remaining to be done, and the intent of the accused. If the accused had gone beyond mere preparation and had done some direct act toward commission of the offence, it was an attempt.
Unit 7 — Joint & Group Liability
7.1 Common Intention — Section 3(5) BNS (= S.34 IPC)
📜 Section 3(5) BNS — Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
Requirements for S.3(5) BNS:
- Criminal act done by several persons
- Common intention — prearranged plan; shared before the act
- Act done in furtherance of common intention
- Participation in the act in some form
⚖️ Suresh v. State of UP ([2001] 3 SCC 673)
Held: Common intention may develop at the spur of the moment during the incident — it need not be pre-planned before arriving at the scene. The court must infer common intention from the conduct of the accused. Active participation in commission of the crime is necessary; mere presence at the scene is not enough.
7.2 Unlawful Assembly & Common Object — Section 189 BNS
📜 Section 189 BNS (= S.141 IPC) — Unlawful Assembly
An assembly of five or more persons is designated "unlawful assembly" if the common object of persons composing that assembly is:
(1) To overawe the Central/State Government or any public servant;
(2) To resist execution of legal process;
(3) To commit any mischief, criminal trespass or other offence;
(4) By force, to obtain possession of property or deprive someone of an easement;
(5) By force or show of force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do or omit what he is legally entitled to do.
⚖️ Common Intention (S.3(5)) vs. Common Object (S.189 + S.3(7))
| Feature | Common Intention [S.3(5)] | Common Object [S.3(7)/S.189] |
|---|---|---|
| Persons | Two or more | Five or more (unlawful assembly) |
| Prior meeting | Common intention may arise suddenly | Requires assembly with common object |
| Knowledge | Shared intention to commit specific act | Knowledge that members may commit offence in prosecution of object |
| Participation | Active participation needed | Mere membership of unlawful assembly |
| Act | Done by any one in furtherance of intent | Done by any member in prosecution of object |
Unit 8 — Offences against Women
8.1 Rape — Section 63 BNS (= S.375 IPC)
📜 Section 63 BNS — Rape
A man is said to commit "rape" if he penetrates his penis, or inserts any object or a part of the body into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her do so with him or any other person; OR applies his mouth to, or makes her apply her mouth to the genitals of any woman — against her will, without her consent, or with vitiated consent (under certain circumstances).
Exception: Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife — wife not below 18 years — is not rape.
Vitiated Consent under S.63 BNS:
- Under fear of death or grievous hurt
- Under misconception of fact — impersonation of husband
- Unsoundness of mind / intoxication / unable to understand nature and consequences
- Under 18 years of age (statutory rape) — regardless of consent
⚖️ State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh ([1996] 2 SCC 384)
Held: In rape cases, the evidence of the prosecutrix (victim) deserves great weight. She is not an accomplice. The prosecutrix's testimony, if found reliable and trustworthy, does not need corroboration. Courts must not re-victimise the victim by putting her modesty on trial. Conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if credible.
⚖️ Independent Thought v. Union of India ([2017] 10 SCC 800)
Held: Sexual intercourse with a wife below 18 years of age is rape — regardless of the IPC exception (S.375 Exception 2). The court read down the exception to protect minor wives. The age of consent in India is 18 years, and marital rape of a minor cannot be condoned. The court applied the principle of constitutional validity — child marriage exception violated Art.14, 15, and 21.
8.2 Punishment for Rape — Section 64 BNS
- Simple rape: Rigorous imprisonment not less than 10 years; may extend to life imprisonment + fine
- Gang rape: Life imprisonment (imprisonment for remainder of natural life) + fine (S.70 BNS)
- Rape of woman below 12 years: Death or life imprisonment (S.66 BNS)
Unit 9 — Offences Affecting Life: Homicide
9.1 Culpable Homicide — Section 100 BNS (= S.299 IPC)
📜 Section 100 BNS — Culpable Homicide
"Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
9.2 Murder — Section 101 BNS (= S.300 IPC)
📜 Section 101 BNS — Murder
Culpable homicide is murder if:
(1) Act done with intention of causing death;
(2) Act done with intention of causing bodily injury that the offender knows to be likely to cause death;
(3) Act done with intention of causing bodily injury, and bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death;
(4) Person committing act knows it to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death — commits act without any excuse for incurring the risk.
⚖️ Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465) — Clause 3 Test
Facts: Accused stabbed victim with a spear causing a penetrating wound in the abdomen. Victim died.Held: For clause 3 of S.300 IPC (= S.101(3) BNS), the court must find: (1) there was bodily injury; (2) the nature of injury must be proved; (3) injury intended to be inflicted (not accidental); (4) injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The intention to inflict the particular injury (not to kill) is enough — the subjective element is the intent to inflict the injury actually found; the objective element is sufficiency of that injury to cause death in ordinary course.
Principle: Murder under clause 3 does not require intention to cause death — only intention to cause the specific bodily injury that is objectively sufficient to cause death.
9.3 Culpable Homicide vs. Murder
⚖️ The Critical Distinction
| Feature | Culpable Homicide (S.100) | Murder (S.101) |
|---|---|---|
| Degree | Broader category; includes murder | Aggravated form of culpable homicide |
| Intent | Intention/knowledge causing death | Higher degree of intention/knowledge |
| Risk | "Likely to cause death" | "Sufficient in ordinary course to cause death" |
| Punishment | Max 10 years / life imprisonment | Death or life imprisonment |
| Exceptions | No exceptions reducing it | Exceptions (S.102) reduce to CH not murder |
⚖️ State of AP v. R. Punnayya (AIR 1977 SC 45) — CH Not Murder
Held: Culpable homicide is the genus; murder is the species. All murder is culpable homicide but not all culpable homicide is murder. When culpable homicide is "most heinous" — it is murder. The distinction is: in culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the knowledge/intent falls short of the test laid down in S.300 clauses.
9.4 Exceptions to Murder — Section 102 BNS (Reducing Murder to Culpable Homicide)
- Exception 1 — Grave & sudden provocation: Act done under grave and sudden provocation causing loss of self-control (not premeditated)
- Exception 2 — Private defence exceeded: Good faith exercise of private defence, exceeding what was lawful
- Exception 3 — Act of public servant: In good faith, exceeding power, done in honest belief of lawfulness
- Exception 4 — Sudden fight: Without premeditation; in the heat of passion on sudden quarrel; not undue advantage/cruel
- Exception 5 — Consent: Victim above 18 years gave consent to risk of death
Unit 10 — Offences against Property
10.1 Theft — Section 303 BNS (= S.378 IPC)
📜 Section 303 BNS — Theft
"Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable 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."
5 Essentials of Theft:
- Dishonest intention to take property
- Property must be moveable
- Property must be in possession of some person
- Taking without consent of that person
- Moving the property (asportation)
10.2 Robbery & Dacoity
📜 Sections 309–312 BNS — Robbery and Dacoity
Robbery (S.309): Theft or extortion with use or threat of violence = robbery.
Dacoity (S.310): Robbery by 5 or more persons acting in conjunction = dacoity.
Robbery to Dacoity: The only distinction is number — 1–4 persons = robbery; 5+ persons = dacoity.
10.3 Criminal Breach of Trust — Section 316 BNS (= S.405 IPC)
📜 Section 316 BNS — Criminal Breach of Trust
"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 prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract — commits criminal breach of trust."
10.4 Cheating — Section 318 BNS (= S.415 IPC)
📜 Section 318 BNS — Cheating
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived 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 or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat."
Essential Elements of Cheating:
- Deception by accused
- Fraudulent/dishonest inducement
- To deliver property or do/omit an act
- Damage or harm resulting (or likely to result)
⚖️ Theft vs. Extortion vs. Robbery vs. Dacoity
| Offence | Persons | Method | Consent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theft (S.303) | Any | Taking without consent; no force | Without consent; no fear |
| Extortion (S.308) | Any | Fear/threat → obtaining delivery | Coerced consent |
| Robbery (S.309) | 1–4 persons | Theft/extortion with actual/threatened violence | Against will + violence |
| Dacoity (S.310) | 5 or more | Robbery by 5+ persons | Against will + 5+ persons |
Important Questions for Examination
DU LLB I Term · LB-104 · Law of Crimes-I: BNS 2023
Short Answer Questions
- What is a crime? Distinguish between a crime, a tort and a moral wrong.
- Explain the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. What are the elements of mens rea?
- What is 'transferred intention'? Illustrate with an example.
- Distinguish between 'intention' and 'motive' in criminal law. Is motive relevant to criminal liability?
- What is strict liability in criminal law? When does it apply? Refer to State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George.
- Explain the types of punishments under Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. What is community service?
- What is the defence of unsoundness of mind under S.22 BNS? What must be proved?
- Distinguish between voluntary and involuntary intoxication as defences under BNS. Refer to Basdev v. State of PEPSU.
- Explain the right of private defence of body under BNS. When does it extend to causing death?
- What is the difference between preparation and attempt in criminal law? Illustrate.
- Explain 'Common Intention' under S.3(5) BNS. How does it differ from 'Common Object' under S.189 BNS?
- What are the exceptions to murder under S.102 BNS that reduce it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
Long Answer / Essay Questions
- Discuss the doctrine of mens rea in criminal law. Explain its types and the circumstances where it may be dispensed with (strict liability). Refer to State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George and State of MP v. Narayan Singh.
- Discuss the 'rarest of rare cases' doctrine for imposition of death penalty as laid down in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab. What factors does the court consider? Is the death penalty justified?
- Explain the defence of insanity under S.22 BNS. What is the legal test for insanity? How does it differ from medical insanity? Discuss Srikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra.
- Discuss the right of private defence under BNS. When does it extend to causing death? What are its limits? Refer to Deo Narain v. State of UP, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, James Martin v. State of Kerala.
- Distinguish between culpable homicide (S.100 BNS) and murder (S.101 BNS). Discuss clauses 1–4 of S.101 with reference to Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab and State of AP v. Punnayya.
- Explain the law of rape under S.63 BNS. Discuss the concept of consent and its limits. Refer to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Independent Thought v. Union of India.
- Discuss criminal conspiracy under S.61 BNS. Distinguish it from abetment by conspiracy. Refer to State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini. When is circumstantial evidence admissible to prove conspiracy?
- Discuss criminal breach of trust (S.316 BNS) and cheating (S.318 BNS). Distinguish them from each other and from civil breach of contract.
- Explain the distinction between theft (S.303), extortion (S.308), robbery (S.309) and dacoity (S.310) under BNS with reference to relevant case law.
MCQs — Law of Crimes BNS 2023
-
1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 came into force on:
(a) 1 January 2024(b) 1 April 2024(c) 1 July 2024(d) 26 January 2024✓ Answer: (c) 1 July 2024
-
2. Community service as a punishment was introduced in:
(a) IPC 1860(b) CRPC 1973(c) BNS 2023(d) Evidence Act 1872✓ Answer: (c) BNS 2023 — new addition
-
3. Mens rea in BNS is reflected through words like:
(a) Dishonestly, fraudulently(b) Voluntarily, knowingly(c) Intentionally, maliciously(d) All of the above✓ Answer: (d) All of the above
-
4. The 'rarest of rare cases' doctrine for death penalty was laid down in:
(a) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab(b) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab(c) Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab(d) Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab✓ Answer: (b) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab — elaborated the doctrine from Bachan Singh
-
5. Defence of insanity under S.22 BNS requires the accused to prove incapacity to know:
(a) Nature of act only(b) That act is wrong only(c) Nature of act OR that it is wrong/contrary to law(d) Both (a) and (b) together✓ Answer: (c) Either — nature of act OR that it is wrong/contrary to law
-
6. Dacoity under BNS requires the robbery to be committed by at least:
(a) 3 persons(b) 4 persons(c) 5 persons(d) 10 persons✓ Answer: (c) 5 or more persons — S.310 BNS
-
7. Under Section 3(5) BNS (common intention), how many persons are required?
(a) Two or more(b) Five or more(c) Three or more(d) Any number✓ Answer: (a) Two or more persons
-
8. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab interprets which clause of murder?
(a) Clause 1 — intention to cause death(b) Clause 2 — knowledge of death(c) Clause 3 — intention to cause sufficient bodily injury(d) Clause 4 — imminently dangerous act✓ Answer: (c) Clause 3 — objectively sufficient injury + subjective intent to inflict it
-
9. Prosecutrix's evidence in rape cases requires corroboration:
(a) Always(b) Never — conviction can rest on sole testimony(c) Only if victim is minor(d) Only in aggravated rape✓ Answer: (b) Never mandatory — sole testimony sufficient if credible (Gurmit Singh)
-
10. Criminal conspiracy under S.61 BNS is complete when:
(a) Agreement is formed(b) Overt act is done(c) Offence is committed(d) Accused is arrested✓ Answer: (a) Agreement itself — no overt act needed for serious offences
Quick Revision Cheatsheet & Mnemonics
Mnemonic — Elements of Crime
HMAI
Human being under legal obligation ·
Mens rea (guilty mind) ·
Actus reus (guilty act/omission) ·
Injury to person or society
Mnemonic — Murder Clause 3 Test (Virsa Singh)
IINS
Injury caused ·
Intended to be inflicted (not accidental) ·
Nature of injury proved ·
Sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death
Mnemonic — Exceptions to Murder (S.102 BNS)
GP PF C
Grave & sudden provocation ·
Private defence exceeded ·
Public servant exceeding power in good faith ·
Fight (sudden) without premeditation ·
Consent (victim above 18 to risk of death)
BNS 2023 — Key Changes from IPC
- Renamed IPC → BNS; CrPC → BNSS; Evidence Act → BSA
- New: Community service as punishment (S.4(f))
- New: Organised crime (S.111 BNS)
- New: Petty organised crime (S.112 BNS)
- New: Terrorist Act (S.113 BNS)
- New: Hit-and-run (S.106 BNS)
- Effective: 1 July 2024
Punishments — BNS S.4
- Death penalty — retained; rarest of rare (Machhi Singh)
- Life imprisonment — for natural life or specified term
- Rigorous imprisonment — with hard labour
- Simple imprisonment — no hard labour
- Forfeiture of property
- Fine + default imprisonment
- Community service — NEW in BNS 2023
General Exceptions — Defence Summary
- Insanity (S.22) — at time of act; legal test
- Involuntary intoxication (S.23) — without knowledge
- Voluntary intoxication (S.24) — negates specific intent only
- Private defence of body (S.34–38) — PIB test
- Private defence of property (S.39–44)
- Burden of proof for exceptions: accused (balance of probability)
- Prosecution must disprove once raised
CH vs. Murder — Key Formula
- CH (S.100) — genus; murder (S.101) — species
- All murder = CH; NOT all CH = murder
- CH: "likely to cause death" — lower threshold
- Murder Cl.3: "sufficient in ordinary course" — higher
- Murder Cl.4: imminently dangerous act
- Punnayya — CH is lesser degree of murder
- Exceptions S.102 — reduce murder → CH
Property Offences — Quick Reference
- Theft (S.303): moveable, without consent, dishonest intent, asportation
- Extortion (S.308): fear induces delivery
- Robbery (S.309): theft/extortion + violence/threat
- Dacoity (S.310): robbery by 5+ persons
- CBT (S.316): entrusted property; dishonest misappropriation
- Cheating (S.318): deception → inducement → damage
- Criminal Misappropriation (S.314): appropriates another's property dishonestly
Key Cases — Flash Reference
- Mayer Hans George — strict liability; ignorance no defence
- Narayan Singh — when strict liability applies
- Machhi Singh — rarest of rare; death penalty test
- Srikant Bhosale — insanity defence; schizophrenia
- Basdev — voluntary intoxication; specific intent
- Darshan Singh — private defence; subjective test
- James Martin — 4 conditions for private defence
- Virsa Singh — murder Cl.3 interpretation
- Punnayya — CH vs murder distinction
- Gurmit Singh — prosecutrix testimony; no corroboration needed
- Independent Thought — marital rape of minor = rape
- Nalini — criminal conspiracy; circumstantial evidence
- Satvir Singh — abetment to suicide; proximate cause
- Mohammad Yakub — attempt vs preparation test
- Suresh v. State of UP — common intention; sudden formation