Definition of Crime

Crime is defined as an act or omission that violates the law, threatens public order, and is
punishable by the state. It is considered harmful not only to individuals but also to society
at large. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), 1860, crimes are addressed with a focus on delivering justice and protecting
societal interests.

Crime vs. Offence

Crime: A general term for an unlawful act or conduct that is punishable by law, disrupting
public order or causing harm.

Offence: Specifically refers to an unlawful act defined and punishable under a particular
law, such as Section 2(24) of the BNS.

Example: Murder is both a crime (due to its societal harm) and an offence (as defined and
punishable under the BNS).

Essentials of Crime

For an act to be classified as a crime under the BNS, four essential elements must be
present:

Human Being (Person)

Actus Reus (Guilty Act)

Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

Causation (Link Between Act and Injury)

1. Person

Definition: A crime requires a responsible entity, either an individual or a legal entity, to be

held accountable. No crime occurs without an identifiable perpetrator.

Legal Scope: As per Section 2(26) of the BNS, the term "person" includes:

Individuals (natural persons).

Companies.

Associations or bodies of persons, whether incorporated or not (e.g., trusts, NGOs, or

unincorporated groups).
Implication: This broad definition ensures that both individuals and entities like
corporations can be held liable for criminal acts, aligning with modern legal frameworks.

2. Actus Reus (Guilty Act)

Actus Reus is the Latin term used to describe a criminal act. Actus Reus is commonly
defined as a criminal act that was the result of voluntary bodily movement. This describes
a physical activity that harms another person or damages property. Anything from a
physical assault or murder to the destruction of public property would qualify as an actus
Reus.

The exception to actus Reus is when the criminal actions are involuntary. This includes
acts that occur as a result of a spasm or convulsion, any movement made while a person
is asleep or unconscious, or activities participated in while an individual is under a
hypnotic trance. In these scenarios a criminal deed may be done, but it is not intentional
and the responsible person will not even know about it until after the fact.

Examples of Actus Reus:

Murder: The actus reus is the killing of a person, resulting from actions like stabbing or
shooting.

Theft: The actus reus is the unauthorized moving of property from one person to another
without consent.

Significence: The specific actus reus varies by offence, focusing on the consequence of
the conduct rather than the conduct alone.

3. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

It is one of the principles of the English criminal law that a crime is not committed if the
mind of person doing the act in question is innocent. It is said that
(the intent and act must both concur to constitute the crime).
Although, and as a general rule, there must be a mind at fault before there can
be a crime, it is not an inflexible rule, and a statute may relate to such a subject-matter an
may be so framed as to make an act criminal whether there has been any intention to
break the law or otherwise to do wrong or not.

In , the doctrine followed by court states that mens rea is an

essential ingredient of every offence, except in three cases:
  Cases not criminal in any real sense but which in the public interest are prohibited
under a penalty, e.g. Revenue acts

 Public Nuisance

 Cases criminal in form but which are really only a summary mode of enforcing a civil
right.

The maxim has, however, no application to the

offences under the penal code in its purely technical sense, because the definitions of
various offences contain expressly propositions as to the state of mind of the accused.
The definitions state whether the act must have been done “intentionally” ,
“voluntarily” , “knowingly” , “dishonestly” , or “fraudulently” , or the like. Every
ingredient of the offence is stated in the definitions. So, mens rea will mean one thing or
another according to the particular offence. The guilty mind may thus be a fraudulent
mind, dishonest mind, negligent or rash mind. Every offence under the code virtually
imports the idea of criminal intent or mens rea in some form or other. If, in any case, the
Indian legislature has omitted to prescribe a particular mental condition, the presumption
is that the omission is intentional. In such, the doctrine of mens rea is not applicable.

Levels of Mens Rea:

Intention: A deliberate desire to commit a criminal act. Example: Planning and intentionally
killing someone.

Knowledge: Awareness of the consequences of an action. Example: Knowingly selling

expired food that could cause harm.

Recklessness: Awareness of substantial risks but proceeding regardless. Example:

Speeding through a red light, knowing it could cause an accident.

Negligence: Failure to recognize a substantial risk that a reasonable person would have
Example: Causing a fire by leaving a stove unattended, ignoring the obvious risk.

Exceptions to Mens Rea: Certain offences under the BNS are strict liability offences, where
mens rea is not required. These include: Bigamy (Section 82). Rape (Section 63).
Kidnapping/Abduction (Sections 137/138). Public nuisance (Section 270). Sale of
obscene books, etc. (Section 292).

Judicial Interpretations:

The Supreme Court of India has emphasized mens rea as a foundational element of
criminal liability. In cases like Ravule Hariprasada Rao v. State and State of Maharashtra v.
Mayer Hans George, the court ruled that mens rea is presumed necessary unless explicitly
excluded by statute.
In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that when a statute is silent, there is a
presumption that mens rea is an essential element of a criminal offence unless otherwise
stated.

General Exceptions: Chapter III of the BNS outlines situations where a person may be excused
from criminal liability due to the absence of mens rea, such as acts committed under duress,
by a child, or due to mistake of fact.

4. Causation

Definition: Causation establishes a legal link between the accused’ s act (actus reus) and
the resulting harm or consequence. It ensures that the harm is a direct outcome of the
accused’ s actions, without which the crime would not have occurred.

Principle: Causation demonstrates a cause-and-effect relationship, often assessed using

the "but for" test (i.e., but for the accused’ s action, the harm would not have occurred).

Examples:

A stabs B, and B dies from the wound. Causation is established because A’ s action
directly caused B’ s death.

A poisons B, and despite medical errors at a hospital, B dies. A remains liable because the
poisoning initiated the chain of events leading to death.

Significance: Causation ensures accountability by linking the defendant’ s actions to the

crime’ s outcome, preventing liability for unrelated harms.

Conclusion

The concept of crime under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rooted in the interplay of
four essential elements: a responsible person, a guilty act (actus reus), a guilty mind (mens
rea), and causation. These elements ensure that only intentional or reckless acts causing
harm are punished, aligning with principles of justice and fairness. While the BNS
modernizes criminal law by incorporating contemporary offences and removing outdated
ones, the foundational principles of criminal liability remain consistent, with judicial
interpretations reinforcing the importance of mens rea unless explicitly excluded.
Understanding these essentials is crucial for legal practitioners, students, and citizens to
navigate the complexities of criminal law in India.
 The concept of private defence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is a critical
aspect of the general exceptions provided in the legal framework. This right allows
individuals to protect themselves and their property from unlawful aggression, but it is
subject to specific conditions and limitations to prevent abuse and maintain social order.
The concept of private defence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is a part of the
"General Exceptions" and is outlined in Sections 34 to 44 of Chapter III of the BNS. This
provision allows individuals to protect themselves, their property, and others from
unlawful attacks, provided certain conditions are met.

Right to private defence divided into two parts- Right to private defence of body and
second one is Right to private defence of property

Right to private defence of body

The Right of Private Defence of the Body under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023,
is a general exception that allows individuals to lawfully defend themselves or others from
unlawful aggression when immediate state intervention is unavailable. This right is
enshrined in Chapter III (General Exceptions) of the BNS, specifically under Sections 34 to
44, with Section 35 being the cornerstone for the right to defend the body, and Section 38
and Section 39 detailing the conditions under which lethal or non-lethal force may be used.

1. Legal Basis and Scope (Section 35 BNS)

Section 35 of the BNS grants every person the right to defend their own body and the body
of any other person against any offence affecting the human body, including attempted
offences. This includes protection against assault, battery, rape, kidnapping, and other
forms of physical harm.

- The right is subject to the restrictions in Section 37, which limits the use of force when
public authorities can be approached or when excessive force is used.

2. When Can Lethal Force Be Used? (Section 38 BNS)

Section 38 outlines the “circumstances under which causing death is legally justified” in
self- defence:

 Assault that may reasonably cause apprehension of death

 Assault that may reasonably cause apprehension of grievous hurt
  Assault with the intention to commit rape
 Assault with the intention to gratify unnatural lust
 Assault with the intention to kidnap or abduct
 Assault with the intention to wrongfully confine a person under circumstances that
may reasonably cause apprehension of inability to seek public authority
 Act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to do so, which may reasonably
cause apprehension of grievous hurt

In these cases, the law recognizes the severity of the threat and allows the defender to use
lethal force if necessary to repel the attack

3. When Can Non-Lethal Force Be Used? (Section 39 BNS)

If the offence does not fall under the descriptions in Section 38, the right to cause death is
not available, but the defender may still use non-lethal force to repel the attack, provided it
is proportionate and necessary.

- This includes situations like “minor assaults” , ‘theft attempts’ , or ‘non-grievous

physical attacks’ .
- The force used must ‘not exceed what is necessary’ to neutralize the threat

4. Commencement and Continuance of the Right (Section 40 BNS)

Section 40 clarifies that the “right of private defence of the body begins” as soon as
there is a ‘reasonable apprehension of danger’ , even if the ‘offence has not yet been
committed’ . The right ‘continues as long as the danger persists’ .

- Example: If someone ‘threatens you with a weapon’ , the right to defend yourself
‘starts immediately’ , even if the attack has not yet occurred.

- This provision ensures that individuals are ‘not forced to wait until harm is done’
before acting in self- defence

5. Limitations on the Right (Section 37 BNS)

Section 37 imposes “important restrictions” on the use of private defence:

- “No right of private defence against acts of public servants” acting in “good
faith” under the “colour of their office” , even if the act may not be strictly legal.
- - “No right of private defence when there is time to seek public authority’ s
protection” .
 - “No right of private defence if the force used is excessive” or “more than
necessary” to neutralize the threat.

This ensures that the **right is not misused** and that **public order is maintained**

6. Right Against Acts of Unsound Mind or Mistaken Individuals (Section 36 BNS)

Section 36 clarifies that the **right of private defence applies even against persons who
are insane, intoxicated, or acting under misconception**.

- Example: If an ‘intoxicated person attacks you’ , you have the ‘same right to defend
yourself’ as you would against a sane person.

- This provision ensures that the ‘mental state of the aggressor does not negate the
defender’ s right’

Conclusion

The Right of Private Defence of the Body under the BNS is a well-defined legal framework
that balances individual self-preservation with public order and proportionality. It allows
citizens to protect themselves and others from imminent unlawful threats, but with clear
limitations to prevent abuse. The provisions are largely similar to the IPC, with minor
structural changes and updated language to reflect modern legal principles.

Right to private defence of property

Section 35 of the BNS grants every person the right to defend their property, whether
movable or immovable, against offences like theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal
trespass.3

Section 41 of the BNS specifies that the right of private defence of property can extend to
causing death under certain circumstances, such as robbery, house-breaking after sunset
and before sunrise, mischief by fire or explosive substance on a dwelling, and certain other
enumerated offences.

Section 43 of the BNS outlines the commencement and continuance of the right of private
defence of property. The right commences when there is a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the property and continues until the threat is neutralized. For example, the right
against theft continues until the offender has effected his retreat with the property or until
assistance from public authorities is obtained, or until the property is recovered.6

Section 42 of the BNS stipulates that when the right of private defence of property
extends to causing harm other than death, the defender cannot intentionally cause
 death. However, they can intentionally inflict any harm other than death upon the
wrongdoer, subject to the limitations outlined in section 37.

Section 37 of the BNS outlines limitations to the right of private defence, stating that there
is no right of private defence against acts that do not reasonably cause the apprehension
of death or grievous hurt. Additionally, it restricts the right in certain situations involving
public servants.

In summary, the right to private defence of property under the BNS is a legal provision that
allows individuals to protect their property from specific offences, with clear conditions on
when and how this right can be exercised

Conclusion

The right of private defence under the BNS is a preventive right and not punitive. It ensures
the safety of one's body and property against specific offenses. However, this right is not
absolute and must be exercised in good faith, with the force used being proportionate to
the threat. The BNS provides a balanced approach by allowing individuals to protect
themselves while also setting boundaries to prevent misuse of this right. The legal
framework ensures that individuals can invoke the right of private defence only in
situations where immediate danger exists and there is no reasonable means to escape or
seek assistance from the authorities.

This structured approach ensures that individuals can protect themselves and their
property while adhering to the legal boundaries set by the BNS.

Landmark Judgments

Several landmark judgments have interpreted the provisions of private defense under the
BNS:

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (1953)**: The court held that the accused's actions were
justified under private defence of property when he discovered thieves stealing his cattle
at night and chased and attacked them, resulting in one death. The court emphasized that
the threat to property was immediate, the defence was proportionate to the threat, and
there was a reasonable apprehension of theft.

- **Onkarnath Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1974)**: The court held that there was no
justification for the dangerous assault, as the power utilized was out of proportion to the
alleged threat, which no longer existed from the complainant party.
Thestatement " reflects thehierarchical
relationship between thetwooffenses under theBharatiyaNyayaSanhita(BNS), 2023.This
distinctionisrootedinthedegreeofintention andknowledgeinvolvedin thecommission ofthe
act, aswell as thecircumstancessurrounding theact.TheBNS has restructuredthelegal
framework previously governedby theIndian Penal Code(IPC),1860, toprovideclarity onthese
offenses.

1. DefinitionsandRelationship BetweenMurder andCulpableHomicide

UndertheBNS, culpablehomicideis definedinSection100, whilemurder is definedinSection

101.Thekey distinction liesinthedegreeofintention andknowledgerequiredforeach offense:

-CulpableHomicide (Section 100): This occurswhen an act is donewith the intentionofcausing

deathorknowledgethat theact is likely tocausedeath. It encompassesa broader rangeof acts
thatresult in death, including thosethat maynotrisetothelevel ofmurder.

-Murder(Section 101): This is a subset ofculpablehomicidewheretheact is done with ahigher

degreeofintention or knowledge.Specifically, murderoccurs when:

-Theact is donewiththeintention ofcausing death.

-Theact is donewiththeintention ofcausing bodily injury that theoffenderknowsislikelyto

causedeath.
 -Theact is donewiththeintention ofcausing bodily injury that is sufficient in theordinary course
ofnaturetocause death.

-Theact is donewithknowledgethat it is soimminently dangerous thatitmust, in all probability,

causedeathorsuchbodily injuryas is likely tocausedeath,andis donewithout anyexcusefor
incurring therisk.

Thus,all murdersareculpablehomicides,butnotall culpablehomicidesaremurders becausethe

lattermay lackthespecificintent or knowledgerequiredformurder.

###**2.CaseLaws SupportingtheDistinction**

Several landmark caseshaveclarifiedthedistinctionbetween culpablehomicideandmurder

undertheBNS, building on precedents fromtheIPCera.

*K.M. Nanavati v.State ofMaharashtra(AIR 1962SC605)*

*Facts*: K.M. Nanavati,a Naval Commander, shot andkilledPremAhuja,hiswife’ slover, after

learning oftheiraffair andconfronting him. Nanavati claimedheactedundergraveandsudden
provocation.

*Judgment: TheSupremeCourtconvictedNanavati of **murder* under Section 302,IPC(now

Section 101,BNS).Thepleaof*graveandsuddenprovocation* (Exception1, Section 300,
IPC/Section101, BNS) wasrejectedbecausetheprovocationwas not sudden,andNanavati had
timetocool down, indicating premeditation.

*Relation toCulpable HomicideNot AmountingtoMurder: Thecaseclarifies thatfor anacttobe

reducedtoculpablehomicide under **Exception1,Section101, BNS,theprovocationmust be
both**grave* and*sudden*,causing immediatelossof self-control.SinceNanavati’ s act was
premeditated, it didnotqualify,making itmurder,notculpablehomicide.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*StateofAndhraPradeshv.RayavarapuPunnayya(1976 AIR1817)*

*Facts*: Rayavarapu Punnayya killedthedeceasedduring a disputeover irrigation water by

repeatedly striking himwitha spadeonvital parts (headandchest).

*Judgment: TheSupremeCourtconvictedPunnayya of**murder* underSection302, IPC(now

Section 101,BNS),overturning the HighCourt’ s finding of culpablehomicide.*Exception 4
(sudden fight)* toSection300, IPC(nowSection101, BNS)didnot apply becausePunnayya used
excessiveforceandtargetedvital areas, indicating intent tokill.

*Relation toCulpable HomicideNot AmountingtoMurder: Thecaseshowsthat for**Exception4,

Section 101,BNS* (sudden fight)toapply, theact must occur in aspontaneous quarrel without
undueadvantageor cruelty.Punnayya’ sdeliberate andexcessiveforceruledout culpable
homicide,confirming murder.
Both cases illustratewhen *exceptions* under Section 101,BNS (graveandsuddenprovocation
or suddenfight) *donot* apply, resulting inmurder convictions rather than culpablehomicidenot
amounting tomurder.

3. Exceptions toMurder Under Section 101oftheBNS

Section 101 oftheBNSincludes**fiveexceptions** that reducetheoffense frommurderto

culpablehomicidenot amounting tomurder:

1. Graveand Sudden Provocation: Culpablehomicideis notmurder iftheoffender,deprived

ofself-control duetograveandsudden provocation, causes thedeathof thepersonwho
gavetheprovocation or anyother personbymistakeor accident. Thisexception is subject
toconditionsthat theprovocation shouldnot be sought or voluntarily provokedby the
offender, nor shouldit be given inobediencetothelawor by a publicservantinthelawful
exerciseofpowers.Additionally,theprovocationshouldnotbegiven in thelawfulexercise
oftheright ofprivatedefence.

2. Right of PrivateDefense: Culpablehomicideisnot murderiftheoffender, in theexercisein

goodfaithof the right ofprivatedefenseofpersonor property,exceeds thepower given by
lawandcauses deathwithout premeditationandwithout any intention ofdoing more
harmthan necessary for thepurposeofdefense.

3. PublicServant Actingin Good Faith: Culpablehomicideis not murder iftheoffender,

being apublic servant or aiding apublicservant acting for theadvancement of public
justice, exceeds thepowers given by lawandcauses deathbydoing an act which he, in
goodfaith, believestobelawful andnecessary for theduedischargeofhisdutyas such
publicservant, andwithout ill-will towards the personwhosedeath is caused

4. Sudden Fight WithoutPremeditation: Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifit is committed

withoutpremeditationin a sudden fight intheheatofpassionupona suddenquarrel and
withouttheoffenderhaving taken undueadvantageor actedina cruel orunusual manner.
Itisimmaterial in such cases whichpartyofferedthe provocation or committedthefirst
assault.

5. Consent ofPerson Above 18Years: Culpablehomicideis not murderwhentheperson

whose death is caused,being abovetheage ofeighteenyears,suffersdeath or takes the
risk ofdeath with his own consent

Theseexceptions highlightthat even ifan act results in death, it maynotamount tomurder ifitfalls
underoneofthesecategories.

###**4.Conclusion**

Thestatement "Every murderisculpablehomicidebutevery culpablehomicide isnotmurder" is

justifiedbythe**hierarchical relationship** betweenthetwooffensesunder the BNS. **Murderis
a moresevereformofculpablehomicide**, requiring a**higherdegreeofintentionor
knowledge**.The**caselaws** discussedaboveillustrate howcourts haveinterpretedthe
**intent andknowledge** oftheaccused,as well asthe**circumstances surroundingtheact**, to
determinewhether theoffenseis murder or culpablehomicidenot amounting tomurder.The
**exceptions** providedin**Section 101 oftheBNS** further reinforcethis distinctionby
allowing for a**reduction in liability** incertainsituations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is a critical aspect of Indian criminal law,
replacing the earlier provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 101 of the BNS
defines murder, while Section 103 outlines the punishments associated with the offense of
murder. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the provisions, exceptions, and
corresponding penalties related to murder under the BNS.

Provisions of Murder under Section 101 of BNS

Section 101 of the BNS categorizes culpable homicide as murder, outlining specific
scenarios where an act resulting in death becomes classified as murder. These scenarios
include:

- **Intention to Cause Death**: Murder is established if the act leading to death is

done with the clear intention of causing the demise of another individual. This
implies a deliberate, premeditated decision to end someone's life.

- **Intention to Cause Fatal Bodily Injury**: Murder is recognized if the act leading to
death is done with the intention of causing bodily injury that the offender knows to
be likely to result in the death of the person harmed.

- **Bodily Injury Sufficient to Cause Death**: The section acknowledges murder

when the act causing death is done with the intention of inflicting bodily injury, and
the nature of the injury intended is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to
cause death.

- **Imminent Danger with Knowledge**: Murder is attributed when the person

committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to result in death. The act
 is committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or severe
injury.

Exceptions to Murder under Section 101 of BNS

Section 101 of the BNS also provides for certain exceptions in the prohibition against
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. These exceptions include:

- **Grave and Sudden Provocation**: Culpable homicide is not murder if the

offender, deprived of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation, causes the
death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person by mistake or accident. This exception comes with specific conditions. The
provocation should not be sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender, and it
should not be given in obedience to the law or by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of powers.

- **Right of Private Defense**: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the
exercise in good faith of the right of private defense of person or property, exceeds
the power given to him by law. The death must be caused without premeditation
and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of
defense.

- **Public Servant Acting in Good Faith**: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the
advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law. The act
must be done in good faith, with a genuine belief that it is lawful and necessary for
the due discharge of duty as a public servant, and without ill-will towards the
person whose death is caused.

- **Sudden Fight Without Premeditation**: Culpable homicide is not murder if

committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel, and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in
a cruel or unusual manner. It is emphasized that it is immaterial in such cases
which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

- **Consent of Person Above 18 Years**: Culpable homicide is not murder when the
person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers
death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Section 103 of BNS - Punishment for Murder

Having studied the provisions and exceptions under Section 101, it is important to
understand the corresponding punishments for murder as outlined in Section 103 of the
BNS.

1. **Punishment for Murder**: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with either
death or imprisonment for life, in addition to being liable to pay a fine.

2. **Group Offense on Specific Grounds**: Section 103(2) addresses instances where a

group of five or more persons, acting in concert, commits murder based on specific
grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief, or
any other ground. In such cases, each member of the group shall be punished with either
death or life imprisonment. Members of the group are also liable to pay a fine.

Section 103(2) of BNS can be seen as an attempt of the legislature to tackle the issue of
mob lynching. The penal code provides punishment by death penalty, imprisonment, or
fine for both individual and mass homicides.

Landmark Judgments

Several landmark judgments have shaped the understanding and application of murder
under the BNS:

1. **K.M. Nanavati vs. the State of Maharashtra (1961)**: This case is a landmark in the
context of provocation. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering
whether a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances would be provoked to lose
self-control. This case established the criteria for evaluating the impact of sudden and
grave provocation, providing valuable insights into the complex interplay of emotions and
actions leading to a homicide.

2. **Rawalpenta Venkalu vs State of Hyderabad (1956)**: In this case, the accused

deliberately set fire to a room, leading to the death of the victim. The Supreme Court
upheld the decision of the sessions court, recognizing the clear intention of the accused to
cause death.
3. **State of Karnataka v. Shariff (2003)**: A child witness's statement regarding his
mother's death was deemed reliable. The court highlighted the importance of considering
the circumstances surrounding the incident and the reliability of witness statements in
establishing the accused's liability for murder.

This comprehensive overview provides a detailed understanding of the provisions,

exceptions, and penalties related to murder under the BNS, highlighting the legal
framework and landmark judgments that have shaped its application.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chain snatching under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is defined as a specific type of
theft where the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or takes away movable
property from a person or their possession This offense is characterized by the element of
speed, surprise, and/or physical force used to take the property

Under BNS Section 304, anyone found guilty of snatching may face imprisonment of up to
three years along with a fine The offense is classified as cognizable, non-bailable, and
non-compoundable, which means the police have the authority to arrest the accused
without a warrant, and the case cannot be settled between the victim and the offender

The introduction of Section 304 of BNS has helped curb the increasing number of chain
and mobile snatching incidents by providing clarity and stricter actions This section
addresses the crime of snatching, detailing its definition and associated punishments

An example of chain snatching would be a thief grabbing a gold chain from a woman’ s
neck in a crowded street, demonstrating the use of force or quick action The sudden
nature of the act creates fear and violates the victim’ s sense of security, which is why it
is treated as a severe crime under this section

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, introduces specific provisions to address the
issue of mob lynching, a significant step in the legal framework of India. Section 103(2) of
the BNS specifically deals with mob lynching, defining it as murder committed by a group
of five or more people based on specific prejudices such as race, caste, community, sex,
place of birth, language, personal belief, or any other similar ground This section aims to
ensure accountability for group violence motivated by bias, thereby addressing the
complexities of mob lynching more effectively than the previous legal provisions under the
Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The punishment for mob lynching under Section 103(2) is severe, reflecting the gravity of
the offense. Each member of the group involved in the act faces the possibility of the
death penalty or life imprisonment, along with a fine This provision is designed to deter
individuals from participating in mob violence and to provide justice for victims from
marginalized communities

In addition to Section 103(2), the BNS also includes Section 117(4), which addresses
cases where a group of five or more persons causes grievous hurt to a person on the same
discriminatory grounds. The punishment for such an offense is imprisonment for a term
that may extend to seven years, along with a fine This section complements Section
103(2) by addressing the spectrum of violence that can occur in mob lynching incidents,
from grievous hurt to murder

The introduction of these provisions is a response to the increasing instances of mob

lynching in India, which have often been motivated by deep-seated social prejudices. Prior
to the BNS, the IPC lacked a specific provision for mob lynching, leading to challenges in
securing convictions and imposing appropriate punishments The new provisions in the
BNS aim to fill this gap by creating a distinct category for mob lynching within the broader
offense of murder, thereby facilitating targeted prosecutions

However, the effectiveness of these provisions will depend on their implementation and
enforcement by law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. Challenges such as
investigative limitations, witness protection, and the potential misuse of provisions must
be addressed to ensure that the law serves its intended purpose The Ministry of Home
Affairs has issued Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to handle mob violence cases,
emphasizing prompt FIR registration, swift investigation, and ensuring accountability

In conclusion, the BNS introduces a comprehensive legal framework to address mob

lynching, recognizing the unique threats posed by such violence and the need for harsher
punishments to deter it. The provisions aim to protect marginalized communities and
ensure justice for victims, while also highlighting the importance of effective
implementation and enforcement

PUNISHMENT

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
introduces a comprehensive framework for various types of punishments aimed at
addressing different levels of offenses. These punishments are designed to serve multiple
purposes, including deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and societal protection, reflecting
a more humane and just legal system that recognizes the complexities of human behavior
and the need for second chances

### Types of Punishments

1. **Death Penalty (Capital Punishment)**:

- Reserved for the most heinous crimes such as specific types of murder and acts of
terrorism.

- Maintained as a deterrent and punitive measure for the gravest offenses.

- Case Law: *Mukesh & Anr vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors (2017)* reaffirmed the death
penalty for convicts of brutal gang rape and murder, highlighting the severity with which
such crimes are treated

2. **Imprisonment**:

- **Rigorous Imprisonment**: Involves hard labor and is prescribed for serious offenses.

- Case Law: *State of Gujarat vs Kishanbhai (2014)* discussed the appropriateness of

rigorous imprisonment for the convict in a kidnapping and murder case

- **Simple Imprisonment**: Does not involve hard labor and is usually for less severe
crimes

3. **Life Imprisonment**:

- Entails incarceration for the convict’ s natural life.

- A common alternative to the death penalty for heinous crimes.

- Case Law: *Swamy Shraddananda vs State of Karnataka (2008)* illustrated the use of
life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, emphasizing rehabilitation and reform

4. **Forfeiture of Property**:

- Involves the confiscation of property derived from or used in criminal activities.

- Aimed at depriving offenders of the economic benefits of their crimes.

- Case Law: *T. Venkatesan vs State of Tamil Nadu (2003)* upheld the forfeiture of
property of a public servant convicted of corruption, reinforcing the principle of no gains
from crime
5. **Fine**:

- Monetary penalties that can be imposed alone or in conjunction with other

punishments.

- Serve as a deterrent for financial and regulatory offenses.

- Case Law: *M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (1987)* imposed heavy fines on industries for
environmental violations, showcasing the application of fines as punitive and corrective
measures

6. **Community Service**:

- Introduced as a reformative punishment, mandating offenders to engage in

community-beneficial activities.

- Aims at rehabilitating offenders while benefiting society.

- Typically reserved for minor offenses, non-violent crimes, and first-time offenders

- Case Law: *Parvez Jilani Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra (2015)* directed the accused
to render community service at B.A.R.C Hospital

### Additional Punishments

7. **Probation**:

- Allows offenders to stay in the community under supervision, instead of serving time in
prison.

- Often used for first-time offenders and minor crimes.

- Case Law: *Joginder Singh vs State of Punjab (1979)* discussed the conditions under
which probation can be granted, emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration

8. **Restitution**:

- Requires offenders to compensate victims for their losses.

- Emphasizes restorative justice by directly addressing the harm caused by the crime.

- Case Law: *K.A. Abbas H.S.A vs Sabu Joseph (2010)* ordered restitution to the victim
in a case of fraud, highlighting the importance of compensating victims
### Special Provisions

- **Commutation of Sentence**:

- The appropriate Government may commute any punishment to a lesser one as per
section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

- The Central Government decides for offenses under Union jurisdiction, while the State
Government decides for offenses under State jurisdiction

- **Fractions of Terms of Punishment**:

- Imprisonment for life is calculated as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years

unless otherwise provided

- **Solitary Confinement**:

- Permissible as part of rigorous imprisonment, with specific limits based on the total
imprisonment duration.

- Not exceeding 3 months in total, with specific scales based on the term of
imprisonment

- **Enhanced Punishment for Repeat Offenders**:

- Additional punishment for certain repeated offenses, including life imprisonment or

imprisonment of either description up to 10 years

### Conclusion

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 introduces a comprehensive and modern framework
for punishments, balancing deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. By
incorporating various forms of punishment, including the innovative use of community
service and restitution, the BNS 2023 aims to create a more humane and effective criminal
justice system. The application of these punishments, as seen in various case laws,
underscores the evolving nature of criminal justice in India, striving to achieve justice for
both offenders and victims while contributing to the nation’ s sustainable development
goals
The Nirbhaya case (2012) was a watershed moment in India, prompting significant
amendments to criminal laws addressing sexual offences, particularly through the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. The subsequent introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, further refined the
legal framework for sexual offences. The BNS, effective from July 1, 2024, consolidates
and updates provisions related to sexual offences, with a dedicated chapter (Chapter 5)
addressing crimes against women and children. Below is a detailed analysis of the
changes in the nature of sexual offences post-Nirbhaya and the corresponding BNS
sections, supported by relevant case laws.

Changes in Sexual Offence Laws Post-Nirbhaya Case

The Nirbhaya case exposed gaps in the IPC, particularly in addressing aggravated sexual
offences, stalking, acid attacks, and human trafficking. The Justice J.S. Verma Committee,
constituted in 2013, recommended sweeping reforms, leading to the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013. Key changes included:

1. *Expanded Definition of Rape (Section 375, IPC)*:

- The definition of rape was broadened to include non-penetrative acts like oral sex and
insertion of objects.

- Consent was explicitly defined, requiring it to be unequivocal and voluntary.

- The age of consent was raised from 16 to 18 years.

- Punishment for rape was enhanced to a minimum of 7 years, extendable to life

imprisonment (Section 376, IPC).

2. *New Offences Introduced*:

 - *Acid Attacks*: Sections 326A and 326B were added to penalize causing grievous hurt
by acid (7 years to life imprisonment) and attempting to throw acid (5-7 years).

- *Stalking*: Section 354D criminalized stalking with imprisonment up to 3 years for the
first offence and 5 years for subsequent offences.

- *Voyeurism*: Section 354C addressed voyeuristic acts, with punishment up to 3 years

for the first offence and 7 years for repeat offences.

- *Sexual Harassment*: Section 354A was introduced, covering acts like unwelcome
physical contact, explicit sexual overtures, and demands for sexual favors, with
punishment up to 3 years.

- *Aggravated Sexual Assault*: Section 376A introduced life imprisonment or death

penalty for rape causing death or persistent vegetative state.

3. *Enhanced Punishments*:

- Gang rape (Section 376D) was introduced with a minimum punishment of 20 years,
extendable to life.

- Repeat offenders (Section 376E) faced life imprisonment or death penalty.

4. *Procedural Reforms*:

- Mandatory reporting of rape cases by police.

- Time-bound investigations and trials for sexual offences.

- Protection for victims during trials, including in-camera proceedings.

These changes were retained and restructured in the BNS, with some modifications to
address modern challenges like cybercrime and gender neutrality in certain provisions.

Relevant BNS Sections for Sexual Offences

The BNS, under Chapter 5 (Sections 63– 97), categorizes offences against women and
children, consolidating and updating IPC provisions. Key sections related to sexual
offences include:
- *Section 63 (Rape)*:

- Replaces Section 375 of IPC.

- Defines rape as sexual intercourse without consent, including non-penetrative acts like
oral sex or insertion of objects.

- Punishment: Imprisonment not less than 7 years, extendable to life, and fine.

- *Change from IPC: Retains the expanded definition from the 2013 amendment but
excludes non-consensual sexual offences against men and transgender persons, as
Section 377 of IPC was omitted following *Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).

- *Section 64 (Punishment for Rape)*:

- Replaces Section 376 of IPC.

- Prescribes rigorous imprisonment of 7 years to life and fine.

- For aggravated cases (e.g., rape by a person in authority, rape of a minor), punishment is
10 years to life imprisonment.

- *Change from IPC*: Consolidates various rape-related provisions and retains stringent
punishments introduced post-Nirbhaya.

- *Section 65 (Gang Rape)*:

- Replaces Section 376D of IPC.

- Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years to life, with fine.

- *Change from IPC*: Maintains the 2013 amendment’ s focus on collective sexual
violence, with no significant alteration.

- *Section 66 (Punishment for Causing Death or Persistent Vegetative State During Rape)*:

- Replaces Section 376A of IPC.

- Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years to life or death penalty, with fine.

- *Change from IPC*: Retains the severe punishment introduced post-Nirbhaya for
heinous outcomes of rape.

- *Section 67 (Punishment for Repeat Offenders)*:

- Replaces Section 376E of IPC.

 - Punishment: Life imprisonment or death penalty.

- *Change from IPC*: No significant change, maintaining deterrence for habitual

offenders.

- *Section 69 (Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means)*:

- New provision addressing sexual intercourse through deceit, such as false promises of
marriage, employment, or promotion.

- Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.

- *Change from IPC: Formalizes judicial interpretations from cases like *Anurag Soni v.
State of Chhattisgarh (2019), where deceitful promises of marriage leading to sexual
intercourse were held to negate consent.

- *Section 70 (Criminal Force to Outrage Modesty)*:

- Replaces Section 354 of IPC.

- Punishment: Imprisonment of 1– 5 years and fine.

- *Change from IPC*: Retains the phrase “outraging the modesty of women” but makes
the offender gender-neutral (using “whoever” instead of “man” ), allowing women to
be prosecuted for such offences.

- *Section 74 (Assault or Criminal Force to Woman with Intent to Disrobe)*:

- Replaces Section 354B of IPC.

- Punishment: Imprisonment of 3– 7 years and fine.

- *Change from IPC*: Gender-neutral offender reference, expanding liability to include

women perpetrators.

- *Section 76 (Voyeurism)*:

- Replaces Section 354C of IPC.

- Punishment: Imprisonment of 1– 3 years for the first offence, 3– 7 years for subsequent
offences, with fine.

- *Change from IPC*: Gender-neutral for perpetrators but retains women as victims,
limiting protection for men and transgender persons.
 - *Section 77 (Stalking)*:

- Replaces Section 354D of IPC.

- Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years for the first offence, up to 5 years for

subsequent offences, with fine.

- *Change from IPC*: Gender-neutral for perpetrators, aligning with modern notions of
accountability.

- *Section 78 (Sexual Harassment)*:

- Replaces Section 354A of IPC.

- Covers acts like physical contact, explicit sexual overtures, or showing pornography
against a woman’ s will.

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

- *Change from IPC*: No significant change, retaining the 2013 amendment’ s

framework.

- *Sections 326A and 326B (Acid Attacks)*:

- Retained from IPC with no significant changes.

- Punishment: 10 years to life for causing grievous hurt by acid (Section 326A); 5– 7
years for attempting to throw acid (Section 326B).

Supporting Case Laws

1. *Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT) of Delhi (Nirbhaya Case) (2017)*:

- *Citation*: (2017) 6 SCC 1

- *Relevance*: The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for the perpetrators,
emphasizing the need for stringent laws for heinous sexual offences. This case catalyzed
the 2013 amendments, which are reflected in BNS Sections 63, 64, 65, and 66.

2. *Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)*:

- *Citation*: (2018) 10 SCC 1

- *Relevance*: The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations under

Section 377 of IPC but retained provisions for non-consensual acts and bestiality. The BNS
omits Section 377 entirely, removing offences like rape of men and bestiality, creating a
 gap in addressing non-consensual sexual offences against men and transgender persons
(relevant to Sections 63 and 64).

3. *Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019)*:

- *Citation*: (2019) 13 SCC 1

- *Relevance*: The court held that sexual intercourse based on a false promise of
marriage vitiates consent, forming the basis for BNS Section 69, which explicitly penalizes
such deceitful acts.

4. *Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)*:

- *Citation*: (2017) 10 SCC 800

- *Relevance*: The Supreme Court read down the marital rape exception for minor wives
(below 18 years), leading to BNS provisions under Chapter 5 prioritizing offences against
children. However, the marital rape exception for adult women persists (Section 63, BNS),

5. *State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)*:

- *Citation*: (1996) 2 SCC 384

- *Relevance*: Emphasized victim-centric approaches in rape trials, influencing

procedural reforms in the 2013 amendment and BNS provisions like mandatory reporting
and victim protection during trials.

Critical Analysis and Gaps in BNS

- *Gender Neutrality: While BNS introduces gender-neutral language for perpetrators in

some provisions (e.g., Sections 70, 74, 76, 77), it retains women as victims for most sexual
offences, excluding men and transgender persons from protection against rape and sexual
harassment. This is a significant gap, especially post-*Navtej Singh Johar (2018), which
anticipated broader protections.

- *Marital Rape Exception*: The BNS retains the marital rape exception (Section 63),
allowing husbands to engage in non-consensual acts with their wives without it being
classified as rape. This has been criticized, as noted in X posts, and is under challenge in
the Supreme Court.
 - *Omission of Section 377*: The removal of IPC Section 377 eliminates penalties for
non-consensual sexual acts against men, transgender persons, and bestiality, creating a
legal vacuum.

- *Deceitful Means*: Section 69 addresses modern concerns like false promises of

marriage but risks misuse in consensual relationships, as critics argue it may fuel
narratives like “love jihad” .

- *Increased Punishments*: The BNS enhances fines and imprisonment terms (e.g.,
cheating under Section 318, criminal breach of trust under Section 316), aligning with
post-Nirbhaya demands for deterrence.

Conclusion

The BNS consolidates post-Nirbhaya reforms by retaining expanded definitions of rape,

introducing new offences like sexual intercourse by deceit, and enhancing punishments.
Chapter 5 of the BNS (Sections 63– 97) reflects the 2013 amendments’ focus on crimes
against women and children, with gender-neutral perpetrator provisions in some cases.
However, gaps remain, notably the exclusion of men and transgender persons from rape
laws, retention of the marital rape exception, and the omission of Section 377. Supporting
case laws like Mukesh v. State and Anurag Soni underscore the judiciary’ s role in
shaping these provisions, while ongoing challenges in the Supreme Court may further
refine the BNS framework.

Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines "organised crime" as any
continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land
grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking of persons,
drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for prostitution or
ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either
as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of
violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to
obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit
The definition of "organised crime" under Section 111 of the BNS includes specific
offences such as kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract
killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit
goods or services, and human trafficking

The punishment for organised crime under Section 111 of the BNS is severe. If such an
offence has resulted in the death of any person, the offender can be punished with
death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less
than ten lakh rupees. In any other case, the offender can be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than
five lakh rupees

Section 112 of the BNS deals with "petty organised crime" and lays down the
punishment for those who engage in such activities The punishment for petty
organised crime under Section 112 of the BNS is imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable
to fine

The BNS also provides for the punishment of those who abet, attempt, conspire or
knowingly facilitate the commission of an organised crime, or otherwise engage in any
act preparatory to an organised crime. Such persons can be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than
five lakh rupees

The BNS also provides for the punishment of those who are members of an organised
crime syndicate, those who harbour or conceal any person who has committed the
offence of an organised crime, and those who possess any property derived or
obtained from the commission of an organised crime or proceeds of any organised
crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime

The BNS has been criticised for using terms such as "hawala transaction", "mass
marketing fraud", "trick theft", "cyber-crime", "robbery", "vehicle theft", "land grabbing",
"contract killing", "cyber-crimes", "trafficking of drugs, weapons or illicit goods" and
"human trafficking" loosely and remaining undefined This has led to concerns about
the scope of the undefined terms and the potential for misuse.

Types of organised crimes

There are various activities that may be termed as organised crimes. Though there
cannot be a definite list, some of the most common types of organised crimes in India
have been discussed below.

Money laundering

Money laundering is one of the most serious crimes which can severely affect any
economy in several aspects. This crime is specifically governed by the Prevention of
Mimey Laundering Act. 2007. It is a way by which illegal money earned from sources
such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc, are diverted to create an impression
that such money comes from a legitimate source. Many criminals are engaged in this
profession where they help people with an illegal income to convert it into a legitimate
income.

Smuggling

Smuggling is another major economic offence in a form of organised crime. This is

mostly governed by the Customs Act, 1962. It is natural that the goods which are
illegal in the terntory of India or heavily taxed are smuggled to continue their trade or
maintain profits. With a change in fiscal policy, the definition of smuggled goods vary
but it is mostly iterns such as contraband substances, valuable jewels, electronics,
certain fabrics, etc. which are smuggled in India. Due to the vast coastline, it becomes
easy for people to smuggle goods.
Overall, the BNS provides a comprehensive framework for dealing with organised
crime in India, with severe punishments for those found guilty of such offences.
However, there are concerns about the clarity of some of the terms used and the
potential for misuse.

Drug trafficking

Drug trafficking is another major crime that poses a threat to the younger population of
India, considering its drastic effects on physical and mental health. It is usually
considered that the most important reason for the high rate of drug trafficking is the
geographical condition of India. It is located between the Golden Triangle (Myanmar,
Thailand, and Laos) on the northeast and Golden Crescent (Pakistan, Afghanistan, and
Iran) on the northwest-both of which are the two largest sources of illicit drugs in Asia.
Resultantly, this form of organised crime has become more prevalent and significant in
the country.

Human trafficking

Article 23 of the Indian Constitution explicitly prohibits human trafficking. Further, there
are various trafficking prohibition laws discussed in the latter part of the article.
Human trafficking is one of the most significant and heinous organised crimes. This
involves women trafficking, child trafficking, trading in sex workers, etc. A book titled
"Indian Mafia" by S.K. Ghosh has revealed that there are more than twenty-five lakh
prostitutes in the country and roughly, three lakh prostitutes get into the profession
every year. Prostitution per se is not a crime but forcefully dragging young girls or
running a brothel imposes criminal liability. Moreover, human trafficking is
undoubtedly a crime.

Contract killings and kidnapping

These are governed by the Indian Penal Code. Contract killings means murdering
someone for money on a contractual basis. This is usually prevalent among the highly
influential and public personalities who are being murdered by their
enemies/competitors through some other criminal for a ransom. Similarly, kidnapping
incidents are also prevalent wherein people pay a certain sum of money to get
someone kidnapped or these criminals ask someone for a ransom. Such crimes are
performed by organised criminals who do such tasks on a regular basis.

1. State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini (1999) (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case)
- *Citation*: (1999) 5 SCC 253
- *Court*: Supreme Court of India
- *Summary: This case involved the 1991 assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), prosecuted under **Section 120B IPC
(criminal conspiracy), **Section 302 IPC (murder)*, and provisions of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). The Supreme Court examined the
organized conspiracy by a transnational terrorist group, involving planning,
procurement of explosives, and execution across multiple jurisdictions. The Court
upheld convictions for key conspirators, emphasizing that Section 120B requires proof
of an agreement to commit an unlawful act, even if details are inferred from
circumstantial evidence. The organized nature of LTTE’ s operations, including
funding and logistics, was central to the case.
- *Relevance to BNS: The principles of proving conspiracy under Section 120B IPC
directly inform **Section 61 BNS*. Section 109 BNS explicitly includes terrorist acts
within organized crime, making this case a precedent for prosecuting syndicated
conspiracies involving violence or terrorism. The Court’ s emphasis on coordinated
group activity and material gain aligns with BNS’ s definition of organized crime.

### 2. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) (Jain Hawala Case)
- *Citation*: (1998) 3 SCC 410
- *Court*: Supreme Court of India
- *Summary: This case involved an organized financial crime network facilitating illegal
hawala transactions to fund political and criminal activities. The accused were
charged under **Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), **Section 406 IPC (criminal
breach of trust), and **Section 420 IPC (cheating)*. The CBI alleged a systematic
syndicate involving politicians and intermediaries. The Supreme Court acquitted the
accused due to insufficient evidence, holding that diary entries alone were
inadmissible without corroboration. The Court clarified that proving conspiracy under
Section 120B requires clear evidence of an agreement and intent to commit an
offense.
- *Relevance to BNS: The case’ s evidentiary standards for proving conspiracy remain
critical for **Section 61 BNS* prosecutions. Financial crimes like hawala, which involve
organized syndicates, fall under *Section 109 BNS*, as they aim for material benefit.
The ruling underscores the need for robust evidence in BNS cases involving complex
financial networks, such as money laundering or fraud rackets.

### 3. State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996)

- *Citation*: (1996) 4 SCC 659
- *Court*: Supreme Court of India
- *Summary: This case arose from the 1993 Bombay bombings, orchestrated by an
organized crime syndicate led by Dawood Ibrahim. The accused were charged under
**Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), **Section 302 IPC (murder)*, and TADA
provisions for planning and executing coordinated attacks involving smuggling,
training, and bombings. The Supreme Court held that Section 120B does not require
proof of every detail of the conspiracy, only an agreement to commit an unlawful act.
The organized structure of the syndicate, operating across borders, was key to the
convictions.
- *Relevance to BNS: The case is a cornerstone for **Section 109 BNS*, which targets
continuing unlawful activities by syndicates, including terrorism. The Court’ s
interpretation of conspiracy and the role of a structured group directly applies to
BNS’ s focus on organized crime networks. This precedent will guide prosecutions of
large-scale, violent organized crimes under BNS.

### 4. Sajal Kumar Mitra vs. State of West Bengal (2016)

- *Citation*: (2016) 15 SCC 96
- *Court*: Supreme Court of India
- *Summary: This case involved the Saradha Group Ponzi scheme, an organized
financial scam defrauding thousands of investors. The accused were charged under
**Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), **Section 420 IPC (cheating), and **Section
406 IPC (criminal breach of trust)*. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the CBI
due to its interstate scope and the syndicate’ s use of fake companies and agents to
perpetrate fraud. The Court emphasized the organized nature of the scheme, involving
a structured network for financial gain.
- *Relevance to BNS: Ponzi schemes and financial frauds by organized groups fall
under **Section 109 BNS* (organized crime) or *Section 110 BNS* (petty organized
crime, depending on scale). The case’ s focus on conspiracy and systematic fraud
 informs *Section 61 BNS* and *Section 303 BNS (cheating)*, providing a framework
for prosecuting financial organized crimes under the new law.

1) Community Service : The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into
effect on July 1, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has introduced
*community service as a form of punishment* for the first time in India. This
marks a significant shift in the country's criminal justice system, moving
towards *restorative justice* and *rehabilitation* rather than purely punitive
measures

Community Service Under BNS

Community service, as defined under the BNS, is *unpaid work* that a court may
order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community. It
is not explicitly defined in the BNS but is elaborated in the Explanation to Section
23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which states that
community service is work ordered by the court that benefits the community and
for which the convict receives no remuneration

This form of punishment is intended to:

- Hold offenders accountable for their actions

- Provide a means for offenders to contribute positively to society

- Reduce the burden on the prison system

- Promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society

Offences Eligible for Community Service

Community service is typically reserved for *minor, non-violent offences, especially

those committed by **first-time offenders*. The BNS has introduced community
service as a punishment for six specific offences:
 1. *Section 202: Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade*

- Punishable by simple imprisonment for up to one year or fine, or both.

Community service may be awarded as an alternative

2. *Section 209: Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 84

of BNSS*

- Punishable by up to three years of imprisonment or fine, or both. Community

service may be awarded as an alternative

3. *Section 226: Attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain the exercise of

lawful power*

- Punishable by up to one year of imprisonment or fine, or both. Community

service may be awarded as an alternative

4. *Section 303(2): Petty theft*

- In cases where the value of stolen property is less than *₹ 5,000*, and the
person is a first-time offender who returns or restores the stolen property,
community service may be awarded instead of imprisonment or fine

5. *Section 355: Misconduct in public by a drunken person*

- Punishable by up to 24 hours of simple imprisonment or a fine of up to ₹ 1,000,

or both. Community service may be awarded as an alternative

6. *Section 356(2): Defamation*

- Punishable by up to two years of imprisonment or fine, or both. Community

service may be awarded as an alternative, but only in plain acts of defamation.
Those convicted of printing or engraving defamatory matter are not eligible for this
benefit

Implementation and Challenges

While the introduction of community service is seen as a progressive step, several

implementation challenges have been highlighted:
 - *Lack of clarity*: The BNS does not provide a detailed framework for how
community service should be implemented, monitored, or enforced. This
has led to confusion among law enforcement and judicial authorities
- *Judicial discretion: The decision to award community service is left to the
discretion of the judge, which can lead to **inconsistent application* and
potential misuse
- *Monitoring and enforcement: There is no clear authority designated to
oversee the execution of community service orders. Experts suggest that a
**nodal officer*, such as a District Programme Officer, should be appointed
to manage and monitor compliance
- *Public perception: Some critics argue that community service may be
perceived as **too lenient*, especially for offences like defamation or public
intoxication, potentially undermining the deterrent effect of the law

Examples of Community Service Activities

Courts may direct offenders to perform a variety of community service tasks,

including:

- Cleaning public spaces

- Planting saplings

- Volunteering at orphanages or animalshelters

- Teaching underprivileged children

- Assisting in traffic management

- Participating in social welfare initiatives

Comparative Perspective

Community service is a *common practice in Western judicial systems, particularly

in the United States and European countries, where it is often used as an
alternative to short-term imprisonment. India's adoption of this model is seen as a
step toward aligning its criminal justice system with **global best practices*

Legal Precedents

Although community service was not formally recognized in the IPC, Indian courts
have occasionally directed offenders to perform such tasks. For example:
 - In Parvez Jilani Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2015), the court directed the
accused to render community service at B.A.R.C Hospital.

- In Sunita Gandharva v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020), the court held that
community service could be imposed as a reformatory measure under Section
437(3) of the CrPC.

- In Manoj Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2022), the accused was directed
to perform community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital on
weekends for one month

Conclusion

The inclusion of community service under the BNS represents a *paradigm shift* in
India's approach to criminal justice. By focusing on *rehabilitation and social
contribution, the BNS aims to reduce prison overcrowding and promote the
reintegration of minor offenders into society. However, the success of this initiative
will depend on the development of **clear guidelines, **robust monitoring
mechanisms, and **judicial training* to ensure consistent and fair application
across the country.

2) JOINT LIABILITY :-

Joint liabilityunder the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS) is a legal principle that holds
multiple individuals accountable fora criminal act committed collectively. This concept
ensuresthat all participants in a crime are treated as equally responsible, regardless of the
specific role eachplayed in the commission of the offense. The BNS outlines joint liability
primarily under Section 3(5), which forms the cornerstone of this legal doctrine.

Key Elements of JointLiabilityUnder Section 3(5) of BNS

For joint liability to be established under Section3(5) of the BNS, the following essential
elements must be present:

1. **Common Intention**: The individualsinvolved must share a specific intent or purpose

to commit the crime. This means that all parties must have a prearranged planora shared
understanding of the criminal objective. The intentionmust be mutual and not merely
similarorcoincidental

2. **Multiple Persons**: At least two individuals must be involved in the act. This
distinguishes joint liability from individual criminal responsibility and emphasizes the
collective nature of the crime
3. **Criminal Act**: There must be a criminal act that is executed as a result of the shared
intention. The act must be in furtherance of the common goal and not deviate from the
agreed-uponplan

Legal Implications of Joint Liability

Under Section3(5) of the BNS, when a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each person is liable for that act in the same
manner asif it were done by him alone. This means that even if only one person physically
commits the crime, all others who shared the common intention are equally liable. This
principle is particularly important in cases where it is difficult to determine the exact
contribution of eachindividual to the crime

Case Law and Judicial Interpretation

Several landmark cases have helped shape the understanding of joint liability under the
BNS:

Mehboob Shahv. Emperor: The court emphasized that for joint criminal liability, the
offense must be committed in furtherance of the common intention shared by all involved
parties. This case reinforced the ideathat common intention is essential forestablishing
joint liability

Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad: The court clarified that the concept of common
intention involves a level of premeditationand coordination. A prearranged plan or a prior
meeting of mindsis essential forconstituting commonintention

Conclusion

Joint liabilityunder the BNSis a well-established legal principle that ensures

accountability forcrimes committed collectively. By holding all participants equally
responsible, the law recognizes the shared culpabilityof individuals who act together with
a common intention. The distinction between joint liability under Section 3(5) and
constructive liability underSection 190 highlights the nuanced approach taken by the
BNSin addressing different forms of group criminality. Through case law and statutory
provisions, the BNS provides a comprehensive framework forunderstanding and
applying the principles of joint liability in criminal law.

3) Unlawful Assembly
An unlawful assembly under the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita(BNS) refers to anassembly
of five ormore persons whose common object is to commit certain illegal acts, such
as using criminal force to intimidate the government, resist the executionof any law,
commit mischief or criminal trespass, or use criminal force to enforce a right or
prevent someone fromdoing something theyare legally entitled to do

Under Section189 of BNS, an assembly becomes unlawful if the common object of the
persons composing it includesany of the following:

- To overawe by criminal force, orshowof criminal force, the Central Government or

any State Government orParliament orthe Legislature of any State, or any public
servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant;

- To resist the executionof any law, orof any legal process;

- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, orotheroffence;

- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain
possessionof any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way,
or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of whichhe isin possessionor
enjoyment, orto enforce any right or supposed right;

- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel anyperson to do what

he is not legally bound to do, orto omit to do what he is legally entitled to do

The punishment forbeing a memberof anunlawful assembly underBNS varies

depending on the specific circumstances. For instance, if the assembly is armed with
deadly weapons, the punishment can include imprisonment forup to two years, or a
fine, or both Additionally, if the assembly is ordered to disperse and members
continue to remain, they can be punished with imprisonment of either description fora
termwhich may extend to sixmonths, orwith fine, or with both

Section 189 of BNS also addresses the liability of those who hire, engage, or promote
the hiring of persons to join an unlawful assembly. Such individuals can be punished
as members of the unlawful assembly, and for anyoffence committed by any such
person as a member of such unlawful assembly in pursuance of such hiring,
engagement, or employment, in the same manner asif they had been a member of
such unlawful assembly, or themselves had committed suchoffence
 Furthermore, Section189 of BNS outlines that if an offence is committed byany
memberof an unlawful assembly inprosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed
in prosecution of that object, every personwho, at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a memberof the same assembly, is guilty of that offence

4) Wrongful Confinement and Wrongful Restraint

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, **Wrongful Confinement** and
**Wrongful Restraint** are distinct legal offenses that address the unlawful restriction
of a person's freedomof movement. These provisions aim to protect individual liberty,
a fundamental right underArticle 21 of the Constitutionof India. The offenses are
defined under Sections 126 and 127 of the BNS, respectively, replacing Sections 339
and 340 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Wrongful Restraint (Section 126 of BNS)

Definition: Wrongful restraint refersto the act of intentionally obstructing a person's

movement, preventing them from proceeding in a direction where they have the legal
right to go. This is defined under Section 126 of the BNS, whichstates that whoever
voluntarily obstructs anypersonso as to prevent that person fromproceeding in any
direction in which that person has a right to proceed commits the offence of wrongful
restraint. For example, if someone blocks aroad or a public path, it can constitute
wrongful restraint

Key Elements:

- **Voluntary Obstruction: The act must be intentional and deliberate.

- **Prevention of Movement**: The obstruction must prevent the person from
proceeding in a directionwhere they have the legal right.
- **Right to Proceed**: The person being restrained must have a legal right to
move in the obstructed direction

Exception:

If the obstruction occurs on a **private way over land or water** and the person
obstructing genuinely believes in **good faith** that they have the lawful right to do so,
it is **not considered an offense**, even if the belief is laterfound to be mistaken.
 **Punishment** (Section 126(2)):

- Simple imprisonment forup to one month, orFine extending to ₹ 5,000, orBoth

Wrongful Confinement (Section 127 of BNS)

Definition

wrongful confinement involves the complete restraint of a personwithin a defined

space, preventing themfrommoving beyond that space. This iscovered underSection
127 of the BNS, which defineswrongful confinement as the act of restricting a
person's movement within specific boundaries. The punishment for wrongful
confinement can range up to five years in jail, depending on the severity of the case

Key Elements:

- **Wrongful Restraint**: The act must first amount to wrongful restraint.

- **Circumscribing Limits**: The person must be confined within **fixed
physical boundaries**, preventing movement in**all directions**.
- **Voluntary Act**: The confinement must be **intentional and deliberate**, not
accidental or due to agenuine mistake.
- **Absence of Lawful Justification**: The confinement must be **without any
lawful authority orlegal excuse**

Punishments for Wrongful Confinement (Section 127):

The penalties vary based on the duration and circumstances of the confinement:

1. Basic Wrongful Confinement(Section 127(2)):

- Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) up to *1 year, ora fine up to

₹ 5,000, orboth. Cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate.

2. Confinementfor 3 Days or More (Section 127(3)):

- Imprisonment up to *3 years, ora fine up to **₹ 10,000*, or Both. Cognizable, bailable,

and triable by any Magistrate

3. Confinementfor 10 Days or More (Section 127(4)):

- Imprisonment up to *5 years* and a mandatory fine of at least *₹ 10,000

 Case Laws and Judicial Interpretations

Vijay Kumari Magee vs.Smt. S.R. Rao (1996)*: A teacher was denied entry to a hostel
after her license expired. The Supreme Court clarified that wrongful restraint requires the
person to have a right to proceed, and denial of access inthis case amounted to wrongful
confinement.

Re M.Abraham (AIR 1950 Mad. 233)*: A bus driver intentionally blocked another bus,
obstructing its path. Thiswas deemed wrongful restraint, but if the passengers were
confined within the bus, it could escalate to wrongful confinement

5) Doli incapax

The concept of doli incapax in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023, is a legal
doctrine that presumes certainchildren to be incapable of forming the criminal intent
( ) necessary to commit an offense. Thisprinciple is enshrined in Section
20 and Section 21 of the BNS, which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 2023. The
doctrine reflectsa long-standing legal and ethical commitment to protect young children
from the full rigors of the criminal justice system, recognizing theirlimited cognitive and
moral development.

Section 20: Absolute Immunity for Children Under 7 Years

Under Section 20 of the BNS, a child under the age of 7 years is conclusively presumed
to be doli incapax. This means that any act committed by a child below this age cannot be
considered a criminal offense, regardless of the nature or consequences of the act. The
lawoperateson the assumptionthat such young children lack the mental maturity and
understanding required to formthe intent to commit a crime.

This provisionis identical in substance to Section 82 of the IPC, which was carried
forward into the BNS without modification. The rationale behind this absolute immunity is
rooted in the protection of childhood innocence and the recognition that children under 7
are incapable of appreciating the moral and legal implications of theiractions.

For example, if a five-year-old child accidentally causes injury to anotherwhile playing,

the act cannot be prosecuted as a criminal offense under the BNS due to the conclusive
presumptionof doli incapax.

Section 21: Qualified Immunity for Children Aged 7 to 12

Section 21 of the BNS introduces a qualified or rebuttable presumption of doli incapax

forchildren between the ages of 7 and 12 years. Unlike Section 20, this presumption
is not absolute and can be challenged and rebutted by the prosecution.
Under this section, a child in this age group may be held criminally liable only if it
is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the child had sufficientmaturity and
understanding to comprehend thenature and consequences of their actions. The
prosecution must demonstrate that the child knew thattheir conductwas seriously
wrong, not merely mischievous ornaughty.

This provisionaligns with the principle of doli incapax as applied in other jurisdictions,
such as Australia and the United Kingdom, where childrenin this age group are presumed
incapable of criminal intent unless the prosecution can rebutthis presumption with clear
evidence.

For instance, if a 10-year-old child sets off fireworks in a crowded area, the court may
considerwhether the child understood the potential danger and seriousness of the act
before determining criminal liability.

Challengesand Criticisms

Despite itsprotective intent, the doctrine of doli incapaxhas faced criticism and debate:

1. ArbitraryAge Limits: Critics argue that the age thresholds (7 and 12) are arbitrary
and outdated, especially in light of modern child psychology and development
studies. Some scholars suggest that the age of absolute immunity should
be revisited to reflect contemporary understandings of child development.69

2. Subjectivity in Assessing Maturity: The rebuttablepresumption under Section 21

requires courtsto assess a child’ s maturityand understanding, which can
be subjective and inconsistent. This maylead to unequal application of the
law depending on the judge or jurisdiction.9

3. Potential for Misuse: There are concerns that the doctrine may be misused by
defense attorneys to shield older children fromaccountability, even when they
demonstrate clear understanding of their actions.6

4. Impacton Juvenile Justice System: The doctrine may complicate the

implementation of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, as it may conflict with efforts to rehabilitateand reform older children who
commit serious offenses.6

Conclusion
The doctrine of doli incapax in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, reflects a protective
and child-centric approach to juvenile justice. By presuming that children under7
are incapable of criminal intent and requiring clear evidence of maturity forthose aged 7
to 12, the lawseeks to balance justicewith compassion. However, ongoing debates
about age limits, subjective assessments, and potential misuse highlight the need
for continued legal and psychological scrutiny to ensure that the doctrine remains fair,
effective,and aligned with modern understandings of child development.

6) RIOT

Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, defines the offense of rioting,
which occurs when an unlawful assembly uses force orviolence to achieve its
commonobjective. Under this provision, if a group of five ormore people gathers
unlawfully and resorts to violence, all members of the assembly can be held guilty of
rioting. The punishment varies depending on whether the rioters are armed or
unarmed. A personinvolved in rioting without weapons may face up to two years of
imprisonment. If the offender carriesa deadly weapon, the punishment increases to
five years

The essential elements of rioting underSection 191(1) of BNS include the

formation of an unlawful assembly with five ormore members, a shared unlawful
objective, the use of force or violence, and the connection between force used and the
commonobjective. The presence of an unlawful assembly is crucial, as defined under
Section 190 BNS. Mere unlawful assembly is not rioting unless force orviolence is
used. The force must be used to achieve the group’ scommon unlawful objective

Section 191(2) of BNS Act lays down punishment for general rioting: up to 2 years
imprisonment orfine or both. Section 191(3) BNS punishment applies to aggravated
cases where weapons are involved— here, punishment can go up to 5 years. Section
191 BNS is bailable for basic rioting, but rioting with deadly weapons (underSection
191(3) BNS) is non-bailable, meaning bail is at the discretion of the Court.

The offense underSection 191 of the BNS is cognizable, meaning the police have the
authority to arrest without priorapproval froma court. The trial process for rioting is
triable by a Magistrate. Both simple rioting and rioting with adeadly weapon are
non-compoundable, meaning once anFIR isfiled, the case must go through the legal
process.

Section 192 of BNS addresses the act of wantonly giving provocationwith the intent to
cause a riot. If ariot occurs due to such provocation, the person responsible can face
imprisonment up to one year, or a fine, orboth. If no rioting occurs, the punishment is
imprisonment up to six months, or afine, or both.

CASE LAW:-

The Supreme Court in Mani Ramvs State of U.P. (1994) defined the requirement of a
“commonobject” in unlawful assemblies under rioting laws. The Court held that
mere membership in an assembly is insufficient to convict a person of rioting unless it
is proven that they shared the common object and actively participated in violent acts.
Similarly, in State of Maharashtravs Abbas Ansari (2022), the Bombay High Court
ruled that mere presence in an unlawful assembly doesnot automatically make a
person guilty of rioting unless it isproven that they participated in violence.

Examples of rioting include political protests that turnviolent, communal clashes

involving property destruction, and mob violence during rallies ordemonstrations. In
the 2020 Delhi Riots Case, several individuals were booked under IPC Sections 147
and 148 (now Section 191 of BNS, 2023) for theirinvolvement in violent protests that
led to arson, destruction of public property, and loss of lives. Courts assessed the
liability of rioters based onCCTV footage, eyewitness testimonies, and forensic
reports

In conclusion, rioting is a grave offense under Section 191 of BNS, 2023, replacing IPC
Sections 146-148. The lawseeks to maintain public order by penalizing those who
engage in violent assemblies. While lawful protests remain a fundamental right,
crossing the boundaryinto violence can lead to severe legal consequences.
Understanding the provisions of BNS, 2023, along with recent judicial interpretations,
is essential for legal practitioners, law students, and the general public alike.

7) AFFRAY

Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, addresses the offence
of affray, which involves fighting in a public place that disrupts public peace and order.
This provisionreplaces Section 159 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is part of
Chapter11 of the BNS, which deals with offences against public tranquillity

Definition of Affray

According to Section 194(1) of the BNS:

 "When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they
are said to commit anaffray."

This definition emphasizes three keyelements:

1. Number of Participants: At least two individuals must be involved in the fight.

2. Public Place: The fight must occurin a public area such as a street, market, park, or
railway station.

3. Disturbance of Public Peace: The altercationmust cause a disruption to public

order, affecting not just the participants but also bystanders or the general public

Punishment for Affray

Under Section 194(2) of the BNS, the punishment forcommitting anaffray is as

follows:

"Whoevercommits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description fora termwhich may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees, orwith both."

 Thus, the maximumpenalty foraffray is: Imprisonmentfor up to one month, or A

fine of up to ₹ 1,000, Both imprisonment and fine.

Examples of Affray

1. StreetFight in a Market: Two individualsengage in a heated argument that

escalates into a physical fight in a crowded marketplace, causing fear and panic
among shoppers.

2. Brawl ata Public Railway Station: A group of people start fighting at a railway
station, creating chaos among passengers and disrupting normal operations.5

In bothcases, the disturbance occurs in a public place and affectspublic peace, thereby
constituting anaffray under Section 194 of the BNS

Cases of affray are triable by any magistrate, indicating that legal proceedings can
take place in anycourt presided overby amagistrate The law focuses onfights that
happen in public spaces, such as streets or parks, where the disturbance affects not
just the fighters but the general public

8) Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity,and Integrity of India

Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), titled "Acts Endangering
Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity of India," is a critical legal provisionintroduced as part
 of the BNS 2023 reforms. This section replaces and expands upon the earliersedition
lawunder Section124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), focusing onactsthat threaten
the foundational principles of India's sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity.

Key Provisionsof Section 152 BNS

Section 152 criminalizesany act— whetherthrough speech, writing, signs, electronic

communication, orfinancial means— that:

- **Excites or attempts to excite secession** (i.e., any movement or call for apart of
India to break away fromthe Union),

- **Promotesarmed rebellion orsubversive activities**, or

- **Encourages feelings of separatist activities**, or

- **Endangers the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India** in anymanner.

The provision is **cognizable** (meaning police can arrest without a warrant) and
**non-bailable**, with trialsconducted by a **Court of Session**. The punishment for
violating thissection includes:

- **Imprisonment forlife**, or

- **Imprisonment up to seven years**, along with a **fine**

This represents a significant increase in the maximumimprisonment term compared

to the earlier IPC provision, which capped at three years

Comparison with Previous Law (Section 124A IPC)

Section 124A of the IPC dealt with sedition, broadly defined as inciting hatred,
contempt, or disaffection against the government. In contrast, Section 152 BNS
narrows the scope to **acts that directly threatenthe territorial integrity or
constitutional unity of India**, ratherthan general disaffectiontoward the government

Legal Safeguards and Exceptions

An important safeguard in Section152 BNS is the **explanation clause**, which

clarifies that **lawful criticism of government policies oradministrative actions**,
aimed at obtaining change through democratic and legal means, **does not
constitute an offence** underthis section. This is a critical distinction that protects
free speechand political dissent within constitutional limits
Examples of Violations

The law applies to a range of actions, including:

- **Funding separatist movements** or militant organizations

- **Online campaigns** promoting secession or violence against the state

- **Public speeches** or writings that incite armed rebellion

- **Visible representation** (e.g., flags, symbols) that promote separatism or

subversion.

Contextual Relevance

This law aligns with the **Preamble of the Indian Constitution**, which emphasizes
the unity and integrity of the nation. The words “unity and integrity of India” were
added to the Preamble during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, reflecting
the importance of maintaining national cohesionin the face of regional and
ideological challenges

Criticism and Debate

While the lawis intended to safeguard national unity, it has also faced criticism for
potentially **curtailing free speech** and being misused against political dissent.
However, the narrower focus on **secession and rebellion**, as opposed to general
disaffection, is seen as a step toward reducing misuse compared to the old sedition
law

Conclusion:

Section 152 BNS thus represents arecalibrated legal framework that seeks to balance
**national securityconcerns** with **constitutional rights to free speechand
dissent**, while addressing the evolving nature of threatsto India's unity and
sovereignty in the 21st century.