BNS

UNIT V
ADA CHANDNA
ASST. PROF.
BMSCL
CHAPTER X: OFFENCES AGAINST
PROPERTY
• Theft – Section 378 [S. 303 BNS]
• Whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person
without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit
theft.
• Explanation 1 – A thing so long as it is attached to earth not being movable property, is not
subject of theft, but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from
the earth.
• Explanation 2 – A moving affected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
• Explanation 3 – A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which
prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving
it.
• Explanation 4 – A person, who by any means causes an animal to move is said to move that
animal, and to move everything which in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that
animal.
• Explanation 5 – The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be
given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority,
either express or implied.
• Ingredients
(1) Dishonest intention to take property.
(2) The property must be movable.
(3) It should be taken out of the possession of another
person.
(4) It should be taken without the consent of that person,
and
(5) There must be some moving of the property in order
to accomplish the taking of it.
• Intending to take dishonestly Intention is the gist of the offence. The intention to
take dishonestly exists when the taker intends to cause wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss to another person.
• Taking without any dishonest intention is not theft.
• The intention to take dishonestly must exist at the time of the moving of the
property [illustration (h)]. The taking must be dishonest. It is not necessary that
the taking must cause wrongful gain to the taker; it will be sufficient if it causes
wrongful loss to the owner. It makes no difference in the accused’s guilt that the
act was not intended to procure any personal benefit to himself.
• When a person takes another man’s property believing under a mistake of fact
and in ignorance of law, that he has a right to take it, he is not guilty of theft
because there is no dishonest intention, even though he may cause wrongful
loss.
• A person can be convicted of stealing his own property if he takes it dishonestly
from another.
• Eg- A creditor, who takes movable property out of his debtor’s possession,
without his consent, with the intention of coercing him to pay his debt, is guilty
of theft.
• Explanations 1 and 2 state that things attached to the land may become
movable property by severance from the earth, and that the act of
severance may of itself be theft [illustration (a)].
• The property must be in the possession of the prosecutor. Thus, there
can be no theft of wild animals, birds, or fish, while at large, but there
can be a theft of tamed animals.
• Where property dishonestly taken belonged to a person who was dead,
and, therefore, in nobody’s possession, or where it is lost property
without any apparent possessor, it is not the subject of theft, but of
criminal misappropriation [illustration (g)].
• The person from whose possession the property is taken may or may not
be the owner of it and may have his possession either rightful or
wrongful. Mere physical control of the person over the thing is quite
enough [illustration (j) and (k)].
• Where there are several joint owners in joint possession, and any one of
them, dishonestly takes exclusive possession, he would be guilty of theft.
• Explanation 5 says that the consent may be express or
implied, and may be given either by the person in
possession, or by any person having for that purpose
authority either express or implied [illustration (m) and (n)].
• Consent obtained by a false representation which leads to a
misconception of facts will not be a valid consent.
• Explanations 1 and 2 state that the moving by the same
act which affects the severance may constitute theft.
Carrying away of trees after felling them is theft but mere
sale is not.
• Moving would also mean removing an obstacle which prevents it from
moving.
• Moving an animal through which other things are moved are also covered
under theft.
• Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan:-It is not necessary that the
taking should be of a permanent character or that the accused
should have derived any profit. A temporary removal of an office
file from the office of a Chief Engineer and making it available to a
private person for a day amounts to the offence of theft.
• K.M.Mehta v. State of Rajasthan:- The offence of theft is committed
if the property of another person is taken away from him without
his consent with a dishonest intention. Even a temporary rention or
deprivation is enough to show that the offence has been
committed
• English and Indian Law on theft
• Under the English law, the property must be taken to deprive
another permanently of his property but this is not so under the
Indian law where removal of movable property with intent to
deprive another temporarily of his property would also amount to
theft.
Punishment for theft under Section 303 of BNS
Imprisonment:
• The offender may face imprisonment for a term that may extend up
to three years or fine, or both imprisonment and fine can be imposed.
Repeat Offenders:
• In case of a second or subsequent conviction, the punishment
increases to rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than one year,
which may extend up to five years, along with a fine.
Value of Stolen Property:
• If the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees and
it is the offender’s first conviction, the court may impose community
service upon the return or restoration of the stolen property.
• SECTION 304- SNATCHING- sudden, quick, or forceful seizure, grabbing, or
taking away of any movable property from a person or their possession,
with the intent to commit theft. (PUNISHMENT- UPTO 3 YEARS AND FINE)
Section 305- Theft in Dwelling house/means of
transportation/place of worship etc-
• INCLUDES- THEFT OF VEHICLES, GOODS FROM VEHICLES,
IDOLS FROM PLACE OF WORSHIP, ANY PROPERTY OF
GOVT. , DWELLING HOUSE.
• PUNISHMENT-up to 7 years along with a fine.
• Satho Tanti v. State of Bihar (1973): In this case, the Patna High
Court here held that ‘Motive is to give greater security only to property
deposited in a house and not to the immovable property of the person
or the party from whom it is stolen’.

Section 304- Theft by a clerk or servant in

possession of master’s property-
• PUNISHMENT- UPTO 7 years as well as a fine.
Section 307- Theft after preparation made for
causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the
committing of the theft-
• OBJECT- TO GIVE EFFECT TO ESCAPE AFTER COMMITTING
THEFT. PUNISHMENT- up to 10 years along with a fine.
• For example, A commits theft on property in Z’s
possession and while committing this theft, he has a
loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this
pistol for the purpose of hurting Z in case Z should resist.
A has committed the offence in this section.
• Extortion – Section 383 [S. 308 BNS]
• Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to
any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to
any person any property/ valuable security of such a nature and extent as to
unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and takes away from his
acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent.
• The terror of criminal charges, whether true or false, amounts to a fear of injury.
The guilt or innocence of the party threatened is immaterial.
• Dishonestly induces the person – to deliver to any person any property
• Delivery by the person put in fear is essential in order to constitute the offence
of extortion, where a person through fear offers no resistance to the carrying of
his property, but does not deliver any of the property to those who carry it off;
the offence committed will be robbery and not extortion. The offence of extortion
is not complete before actual delivery of the possession of the property by the
person put in fear.
• Difference Between Theft and Extortion
• Both theft and extortion are crimes against property but they differ in various
aspects. Here are points of difference between Theft and extortion-
• Definition: Theft involves dishonestly taking someone’s movable property
without their consent, with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. On
the other hand, extortion is the act of obtaining property, money or services
from someone by using threats, coercion or intimidation.
• Nature: Theft is a crime against property, while extortion is a crime against
property rights and personal liberty.
• Type of Property: In Theft, movable properties are subjected to Theft, while in
extortion, the victim can deliver both movable and immovable properties to
avoid the harm that may be inflicted upon them.
• Consent: In Theft, the victim does not consent to taking their property. In
extortion, the victim may give up their property or valuables, but it is done
under duress or fear of harm.
• Intent: The intent of Theft is to dishonestly take and permanently deprive the
owner of their property. In extortion, the intent is to obtain property or
valuables through fear or intimidation.
• Presence of Threat: Theft does not involve any threats or coercion towards
the victim. In contrast, extortion relies on the use of threats or intimidation to
force the victim into compliance.
• Subject Matter: Theft is limited to the taking of movable property only.
In contrast, extortion can involve the taking of both movable and
immovable property.
• Number of Offenders: Theft can be committed by one person acting
alone. On the other hand, extortion can be committed by one or more
persons acting together.
• Force: Theft does not involve the use of force or compulsion.
However, in extortion, force or compulsion exists as the victim is put
in fear of injury to themselves or others.
• Element of Fear: In Theft, the element of fear is absent; the act is
committed without instilling fear in the victim. In extortion, the
element of fear is present, and the perpetrator uses threats or
coercion to induce compliance.
• Delivery of Property: In Theft, the victim is not required to deliver the
property voluntarily.
• However, in extortion, the victim delivers the property or valuables to
avoid the harm threatened upon them
• PUNISHMENT- UPTO 7 YRS / FINE/ BOTH
• IN ORDER TO COMMIT EXTORTION- PUTS PERSON UNDER
FEAR OF ANY INJURY- UPTO 2 YRS/ FINE/BOTH
• IN ORDER TO COMMIT EXTORTION PUTS U/ FEAR OF
DEATH/ GH- UPTO 7 YRS+FINE
• WHO COMMITS EXTORTION PUTTING PERSON UNDER
FEAR OF D/GH- UPTO 10 YRS+FINE
• Robbery– Section 390 [S. 309 BNS]
In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
• When theft is robbery –
• Theft is ‘robbery’ if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing
the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained
by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to
cause to any person’s death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant
death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
• When extortion is robbery-
• Extortion is ‘robbery’ if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion,
is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion, by
putting that person in fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and by so putting
in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the
thing extorted.
• Explanation – The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to
put other person in fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint.
• Robbery is a special and aggravated form of either theft or extortion. The
chief distinguishing element in robbery is the presence of imminent fear of
violence.
• There can be no case of robbery which does not fall within the
definition either of theft or of extortion, but in practice it will
perpetually be a matter of doubt whether a particular act of robbery
was a theft or extortion.
• It is by no means improbable that Z’s right arm bracelet may have
been obtained by theft and left arm bracelet by extortion, that the
rupees in Z’s girdle may have been obtained by theft and those in his
turban by extortion.
• Even if death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of any of these, is
caused after committing theft, in order to carry away the property
obtained by theft, this offence would be committed.
• Voluntarily causes
• An accidental infliction of injury by a thief will not convert his offence
into robbery. But where in committing theft, there is undoubtedly an
intention seconded by an attempt to cause hurt, the offence is robbery.
In order to make an offence of theft a robbery, there must be either
theft and injury or threat of injury while committing theft.
• Dacoity – Section 391 [S. 310 BNS]
• When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt
to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of
persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a
robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission
or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so
committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit
“dacoity”.
• Dacoity is robbery committed by five or more persons, otherwise there is no difference between dacoity
and robbery. The gravity of the offence consists in the terror it causes by the presence of a number of
offenders. Abettors who are present and aiding when the crime is committed are counted in the number.
• Dacoity is perhaps the only offence which the legislature has made punishable at four stages. When five
or more persons assemble for the purpose of committing a dacoity, each of them is punishable under
Section 402, merely on the ground of joining the assembly.
• Another stage is that of preparation and if any one makes preparation to commit a dacoity, he is
punishable under Section 399. The definition of ‘dacoity’ in this section shows that the other two stages,
namely the stage of attempting to commit and the stage of actual commission of robbery, have been
treated alike and same within the definition. Attempt to commit dacoity is also dacoity.
• It is possible to commit the offence of dacoity by merely attempting to commit a robbery by five or more
persons without being successful in getting any booty whatsoever. If in a case, the dacoits are forced to
retreat due to stiff opposition from the inmates or villager without collecting any booty, and then it must
be held that the offence of dacoity is completed the moment the dacoits take to their heels without any
booty.
• Conjointly It refers to united or concerted action of the persons participating in the transaction. It is only
when their individual action can be properly referred to their concerted action that the question of
conviction under this section can arise. Fear of instant death or of hurt, or of wrongful restraint –
imminent fear of death hurt etc. will be sufficient to bring the section into operation.
Criminal Misappropriation of
Property
• Section 403[S. 314 BNS] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
states that whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts
to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• If anyone dishonestly misappropriates or converts to their
use, any movable property, they will be imprisoned for a
term of 2 years, or with a fine, or both.
• Essential Ingredients to commit this offence:
• Dishonest misappropriation of property
• Such property must be movable
• Such property should belong to the complainant
• Case Law
• U.Dhar v. State of Jharkhand (2003): The Supreme Court held that
the word ‘dishonestly’ and ‘misappropriate’ are necessary
ingredients of an offence under Section 403. Any dispute being
about recovery of money is purely of civil nature. Hence, a criminal
complaint regarding such a matter is not maintainable.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Mategaonkar (1964): Madhya
Pradesh HC held that misappropriation of property can be deemed
as temporary or permanent, and no endorsement or approval is
necessary to establish this offence.
• Ramaswamy Nadar v. State of Madras (1957): The Supreme Court
interpreted the phrase “converts to his own use” as mentioned in
Section 403 of the IPC 1860. The court held that it implies the
accused has utilized the property in a manner that goes against
the rights of the actual owner of the property.
Section 315 - Dishonest Misappropriation of Property Possessed by a Deceased
Person
-Definition
Section 315 criminalizes the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property
that was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of their death if:
The offender knows that the property was in the deceased's possession, and
The property has not yet come into the possession of a person legally entitled to it.
-Punishment
General Cases: Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term
up to three
years and a fine.
-Clerks/Servants: If the offender was employed as a clerk or servant by the
deceased at the time
of death, the imprisonment may extend up to seven years.
-Illustration: Z dies, leaving behind furniture and money. Before these assets are
claimed by any legal heir, A, Z’s servant, dishonestly misappropriates the
money. A is guilty under Section 315.
Criminal Breach of Trust

• Section 405 [S. 316 BNS] of IPC, 1860, deals with the penalty clause of
criminal breach of trust, which is defined in Section 405 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. So, by its own heading in Section 405, it is clear that
when any “person” places their trust in “someone” for transferring
possession of some property to “someone,” that “someone” then
breaches the trust of the “person” by retaining the property comes
under the ambit of Section 406 of IPC.
• A criminal breach of trust is said to be committed if any person
entrusted with any property dishonestly misappropriated it for their use.
• Essential Ingredients to commit this offence
• Delegation of property by one person to another
• The offender makes misappropriation or converts the property for
themselves
• The property shall be dishonestly converted or misappropriated
Cases Laws-
1. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of State of Gujarat vs.
Jaswantlal Nathalal (AIR 1968 SC 700) that the term “entrustment”
implies that the person who transfers any property or transfers it on
their behalf remains the property’s owner under Section 406 of IPC.
2. In Mohammed Sulaiman vs. Mohammed Ayub, the court claimed
that “According to Section 405 IPC, property must be used or
disposed of in violation of any express or implicit legal contract if
something is done to it that would suggest misappropriation,
conversion, or misuse to establish an offence under Section 406 of
IPC. The terms of this section will not apply to a simple civil dispute”.
3. The Supreme Court ruled in Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada that a husband or specified family member who dishonestly
misappropriates or steals a wife’s stridhan property for his benefit or
who authorizes another person to do so constitutes a criminal
breach of trust.
• RECEIVING OF STOLEN PROPERTY (317)
-Definition of Stolen Property (Subsection 1):
Property transferred through theft, extortion, robbery, cheating,
criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust is considered
"stolen property."
-This applies to property obtained within or outside India.
-If the stolen property is later possessed by a legally entitled person, it ceases to be
stolen property.
Dishonest Receipt or Retention (Subsection 2):
-Dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, knowing or having reason to
believe it is stolen, is punishable by:
Imprisonment up to 3 years, or
Fine, or
Both.
-Property Stolen by Dacoity (Subsection 3):
Receiving or retaining stolen property obtained through dacoity, or from someone
involved in a gang of dacoits, is punishable by:
Life imprisonment, or Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years, and fine.
-Habitual Offenders (Subsection 4):
Habitually dealing in stolen property, knowing or having
reason to believe it is stolen, is punishable by:
Life imprisonment, or Imprisonment up to 10 years, and
Fine.
- Assistance in Concealing or Disposing of Stolen Property
(Subsection 5):
Assisting in concealing, disposing of, or making away with
stolen property is punishable by:
Imprisonment up to 3 years, or Fine, or Both.
THE OFFENCE OF CHEATING

• Cheating is considered as a criminal offence under the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC). It is done in order to gain profit or an advantage
from another person by using some deceitful means.
• Essentials of Cheating
• Section 415[S. 318 BNS] has two alternate parts, in the very first part
the person must ‘dishonestly’ or ‘fraudulently’ induce the
complainant to deliver any property while in the second part, the
person should intentionally induce the complainant (the person so
deceived) to do or omit to do a thing.
• Ex- A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally
deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit
goods for which he does not mean to pay. A has committed the
offence of cheating under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The key elements of this section:
1.Deception: This means tricking or misleading someone. It can be done
through false statements, false promises, or even concealing
information.
2.Fraudulent or Dishonest Inducement: The deception must lead the
victim to do something they wouldn’t normally do, or to stop doing
something they would normally do. This could involve giving away
property(Transfer possession of any property to any person or) ,
consenting to someone keeping property (Agree that another person
shall retain any property or), or doing something that causes harm.
3.Damage or Harm: The victim must suffer a loss or harm as a result of
the deception. This could be physical harm, mental harm, damage to
their reputation, or financial loss.
• NOTE- Dishonest Concealment: If someone hides important facts on
purpose to deceive another person, it’s also considered cheating.
Subsection 2 Cheating : Punishment can be
imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both.
Subsection 3 Cheating with Wrongful Loss : If cheating
causes wrongful loss to someone whom the person was
legally bound to protect, the punishment can be
imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both.
Subsection 4 Cheating Involving Property or Valuable
Security: If cheating leads to the delivery of property or
alteration of valuable security, the punishment can extend
to seven years of imprisonment and a fine.
CASES
• Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita (2024) – In this recent
Supreme Court case, the Court discussed the
significance of deception and inducement in the context
of cheating. The judgment emphasized that a mere
breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless
there is a fraudulent intention at the outset.
• Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963 AIR 1572):
The Court explained the essence of cheating as
involving two elements—deception and inducement.
• Cheating by Personation
• Section 416 [S. 319 BNS] of the code states that, a person
is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending
to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one
person for another, or representing that he or any other
person is a person other than he or such other person really
is.
• Illustrations
• ‘A’ cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the
same name. ‘A’ cheats by personation.
• ‘A’ cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased.
‘A’ cheats by personation.
• Punishment for Cheating by Personation
• UPTO 5 YEARS/FINE/BOTH.
• Baboo Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961):
• The Allahabad HC held that the accused, who pretended
to be a certain well-known eye specialist and encouraged
the claimant to agree to him to carry out a procedure on
the eye of his 12-year-old son, was found guilty under
section 416 of Indian Penal Code, IPC.
MISCHIEF (324-328)
• Means- intentional actions that cause wrongful loss or
damage to public or private property.
• Section 324- anyone who, with the intent to cause or
knowing that they are likely to cause wrongful loss or
damage, destroys or alters any property (diminish its
value/utility) commits mischief.
• Punish- upto 6 months/ fine/ both
• For example, an individual intentionally vandalizes a
public park's playground equipment, causing both damage
and financial loss to the community.
• Section 325- mischief committed by killing, poisoning,
maiming, or rendering useless any. The intention behind
these sections is to prevent animal cruelty, and the
punishment for such acts can be imprisonment for up to
five years, a fine, or both.
SECTION 326
• It addresses the punishment for causing damage to irrigation works, rendering them
useless, or wrongfully diverting them to cause mischief. The objective of this section
is to prevent any disruption in the supply of water used for commercial purposes,
such as agriculture, manufacturing, or essential needs like drinking and storage. The
punishment for such offences can be imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or
both.
• Commission of mischief by causing damage to any public road, bridge, navigable
river, or channel. The act renders them impassable or less safe for traveling or
conveying property- 5y/fine/both.
• Individuals who perform acts that result in or are likely to cause inundation or
obstruction to any public drainage, causing injury or damage.- 5y/fine/both.
• Destruction/movement of any navigation sign/ signal used for rail/aircraft/ship- upto
7/fine/both.
• Destruction of any landmark fixed by a public servant- 1 yr/fine/both.
• Mischief by fire/ explosive- resulting in damage to property including agricultural
produce- upto 10 years/fine/both.
CRIMINAL TRESPASS(329-334)
• Trespass- encroachment on the property of another. It is
an unjustifiable interference with the property of
another.
• Trespass to immovable property in torts becomes a
criminal wrong if the entry is with intent to commit an
offence.“
• KINDS OF TRESPASS-
1. Criminal trespass and house trespass (329)
2. Lurking House trespass and house breaking (330)
3. Lurking house trespass and house breaking and house
breaking by night punishments (331)
• Section 329- Criminal trespass involves entering another person's property
with the intent to commit an offense, intimidate, insult, or annoy
the property's possessor or having lawfully entered into or upon such
property with such intent. It includes both unlawful entry and remaining
on the property with criminal intent.
• A mere entry and occupation without committing any offence, even if it is
illegal, does not amount to criminal trespass.“
• Criminal trespass of one's own property: An owner of property himself can
be guilty of trespass on his own property, if his property rightly or wrongly
is in possession of some other person and if he enters such land with
intent to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult or annoy that person.
• The Supreme Court, in Mathuri and Ors. vs. State of Punjab,
emphasized that the court needs to be satisfied that causing annoyance,
intimidation, or insult was the aim of the entry. Mere knowledge that the
entry might cause annoyance is insufficient for proving intent.
• Punishment- upto 3 months/fine upto 5K/both.
• House trespass- Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in
any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a
place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit this
offence.
• Punish- upto 1 year/fine upto 5K/both.
Section 330- Lurking house trespass- If a person, committing house trespass, takes
precaution to conceal such house trespass from some person who has a right to
exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, said to commit this offence.
• Thus, if the house-trespass is committed in a surreptitious (concealed) manner, then
it is treated as lurking house-trespass.“
• House Breaking- If person effects his entrance into house/ quits in any of 6 ways
below mentioned-
1. Passage made by himself/ abettor
2. By passage not intended by anyone for human entrance or by scaling a wall/
climbing a wall
3. Opened passage
4. Opening a lock
5. Use criminal force/ assault
6. By passage which is fastened to prevent entrance or departure
• House braking involves House trespass which involves criminal trespass. Thus, unless no
intention to commit criminal trespass neither house breaking nor house trespass will be
constituted.
• Section 331(1)- Punish- HB/LHT- upto 2 years+fine.
331(2)- HB/LHT (after sunset before sunrise- upto 3 years+fine)
331(3)- Commits LHT/HB- to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment- upto 3 year + fine.
331(4)- same as above but committed before sunrise after sunset- upto 5 years + fine.
331(5)- LHT/HB after preparation made for hurt/ assault/ Wrongful restraint or fear of any of
them- upto 10 year + fine.
331(6)- same as above but after sunset before sunrise- upto 14 years + fine.
331(7)- While committing LHT/HB cause GH/ attempt to cause death/ GH- LI/ Upto 10 years + fine.
331(8)- All persons jointly concerned in house breaking by night or lurking house
trespass are punishable where death or grievous hurt is caused/ attempted
by one of them - punishment is life imprisonment or imprisonment upto ten
years and also fine.
CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION (351-355)
Ch- XIX
• The literal definition of intimidation, as per the Oxford Dictionary, is to coerce
someone into acting as desired by the intimidator.
• As Section 503 [S. 351 BNS] IPC, criminal intimidation is an act committed by an
individual who threatens another person with harm to their person, reputation, or
property, or w.r.t someone they care about, with the intention of compelling them
to perform an act that they are not legally obligated to do. The person who poses
the threat is referred to as the intimidator.
• In such cases, the accused may use words or gestures to intimidate and cause
harm to the victim’s body, property, reputation, or even to other family members.
• For example, : A threatens to burn down B’s house to dissuade him from filing a
civil suit.
• In this scenario, A has committed the offence of criminal intimidation. A has used a
threat to cause damage to B’s property and subsequently compelled him to refrain
from performing a legally required act (filing the civil suit), thereby making A guilty
of the offence of criminal intimidation.
• ESSENTIALS OF CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION UNDER SEC 503 IPC
• The landmark case of Narender Kumar & Ors v. State (2012) established
the essential elements required to constitute the offence of criminal
intimidation under Section 503 IPC:
• Threat of injury to the victim
• According to Section 2 (14) , injury refers to any unlawful damage
caused to an individual, whether it pertains to their body, mind,
reputation, or property.
• Ways in which threats can occur
Criminal intimidation can take place through various means, including
a. Threatening to cause injury to a person.
b. Threatening to cause injury to the reputation of the victim.
c. Threatening to cause injury to the property of the victim.
d. Threatening to cause injury to another person or the reputation of
someone the victim is interested in.
• The Supreme Court of India, in the leading case of Romesh
Chandra Arora v. State (1960), further clarified that criminal
intimidation under Section 503 IPC is not limited to the
imposition of a threat but also includes situations where the
threat serves as a mere warning to an individual.
• Punishment for Criminal Intimidation- upto 2 years/fine/both.
• Aggravated form- If the threat of the intimidator leads to
causing hurt, grievous hurt or death to the person
threatened or damaging any property by fire, threat is to
impute chastity to women. In that case, the punishment is a
maximum of seven years imprisonment, a fine, or both.
• Anonymous threat- by concealing identity/ anonymously-
additional punishment- upto 2 year + criminal intimidation.
• Sec 352- this section focuses on intentional insult with the intent to
provoke a breach of the peace. According to this provision, if
someone intentionally insults another person, intending to provoke
a breach of the peace or knowing that such insult is likely to lead to
a breach of the peace or they commit an offence.
• Punish- upto 2 year/fine/both.
• Mere insult without any intention of provoking a breach of peace or
harm to the victim does not amount to an offense under this
section.
• Ingredients-
1. Intententional insult
2. Provocation
3. Knowledge/ likelihood- offendor knows/intends that this
provocation may lead the victim to break public peace/commit
offence.
• Sec 353- deals with statements conducing to public mischief
(includes e- means)
• It states that anyone who makes, publishes, or circulates any
statement, rumour, or report with the intent to cause-
a. Army disruption
b. Public/ any section of public inciting them to commit offence
against state
c. Communal violence
Punish- upto 3 years/fine/both.
353(2)- Hate speech – to promote enmity/ ill will between groups
based on religion/race/caste etc- upto 3 years/fine/both.
353(3)- Religious context- above offence in place of worship during
religious ceremony- upto 5 year+ fine.
Exception- no offence if statement/report is believed to be true/ on
reasonable grounds and made in good faith w/o intent to harm.
• Sec 354- deals with an act caused by inducing a person to
believe that he will be rendered an object of the Divine
displeasure. This section makes it a criminal offence to
induce a person to believe that if he does not do a
particular act, he will be punished by God.
• Punish- upto 1 year/fine/both.
• INGRIDIENTS-
1. Voluntary inducement
2. To do an act/omission
3. Inducing belief, if do not comply, himself/someone else
(care) will become object of divine displeasure.
• Manik Taneja & Anr v. State of Karnataka (2015)
• In the case of Manik Taneja & Anr v. State of Karnataka (2015), the Supreme Court
ruled that posting written statements on a social media platform, in this case,
Facebook, about unfair treatment by the police did not constitute criminal intimidation
under Section 506 of the IPC. The appellant had been involved in a car accident with
an auto-rickshaw, and even after paying compensation for the passenger’s treatment,
the woman in the auto-rickshaw felt incensed and complained on the Bangalore traffic
police’s Facebook page. However, the court found no evidence of criminal intimidation
in this situation.
• Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)
• In the case of Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), the Supreme Court
concluded that the mere act of abusing someone in filthy language does not meet the
requirements for the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the IPC. In
this case, the respondent and some others went to the plaintiff’s residence, and one
person in the group was carrying a pistol
• They verbally abused the plaintiff and attempted to attack him, but when neighbours
arrived, they ran away. The court found that the accusation, if taken at face value, did
not fulfil the elements of criminal intimidation under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC,
as the insult was not severe enough to cause a person to break public peace or
commit another crime.
DEFAMATION (Sec 356)
• Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible
representations, makes or publishes in any manner, any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation
will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, to defame that person. (1)

• Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service. (2)

• Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that
such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (3)

• Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing
defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (4)
• Ingredients of Defamation
• To establish the case of defamation under BNS some essentials
need to be fulfilled:

1.Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person.

2.Such imputation must have been made by

3.Words, either spoken or intended to be read; or

4.Signs; or

5.Visible representations.

6.Such imputation must have been with the intention of harming or

with the knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the
reputation of the person concerning whom it is made.
Explanation 1 specifies that imputations about a deceased
person can be defamation if they would harm the reputation if
the person were alive.
Explanation 2 extends defamation to imputations concerning
companies or associations.
Explanation 3 notes that imputations expressed ironically or in
alternative forms may still constitute defamation.
Explanation 4 establishes the criteria for imputations to be
considered defamatory, including lowering moral or intellectual
character, caste, calling, credit, or suggesting a loathsome state.
• The provision for criminal defamation is found in Sahnita under
section 356. It relates to the prosecution for defamation of
general person under sub section 1 and of some named officials
in sub-section 2 in particular. In case of an ordinary persons the
complaints must be made by the person aggrieved, not by the
person being defamed and in the second category, that is to say
in the case of high dignitaries, where the question of defamation
is related to the performance of public duties, the session court
may take cognizance of the written complaint of the public
prosecutor. The complaint shall be in writing and made within
six months of the alleged crime. The state prosecutor cannot
make a complaint without prior instrument of influence from the
state or central government. A complaint shall consist: of the
crime, the nature of the crime and the necessary information so
that the accused gets sufficient information regarding
complaint.
• Exceptions of Defamation
1.Imputation of truth for public good requires to be made or
published.

2.Opinion on public servants.

3.Conduct of any person touching any public question.

4.Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts.

5.Merits of a case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses

and others concerned.
6. Merits of public performance/ public submissions

7. Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful

authority over someone.

8. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised

person/lawful authorities.

9. Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of

his or others interests.

10. Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed

or for public good.
• Types of Defamation
• There are two types of defamation. They are

1.Libel
• Libel refers to that kind of defamation that goes on to deal with the publication of
untruthful statements about a person or entity in written, printed, or any visual
mode through which it is recorded and has permanent effectiveness due to their
persistence. It is usually through books, newspapers, magazines, and photographs.

2.Slander
• Slander is a form of defamation where a person or entity disseminates false claims
about another. They are transient in nature and hence less permanent. They
spread quickly through word of mouth, conversations, and speeches.
• CASES-
• In the legal case of Subramanian Swamy versus the Union of India, the Supreme Court
emphasized the value of freedom of expression under the Constitution but noted its
non- absoluteness.
• Applying the concept of reasonable restrictions, the court highlighted that freedom of
speech, while expansive, is subject to limitations to prevent misuse.
• The court affirmed that an individual's reputation is an integral part of the right to life
under Article 21, stating it cannot be sacrificed for another's right to free speech.
• The court distinguished between defamatory attacks and criticism, advocating
tolerance for the latter but not the former.
• In the case of Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, the Supreme Court pushed back
against state interference in freedom of speech.
• It declared Section 66A of the IT ACT-2000 unconstitutional, citing a violation of Article
19(1)(a) and a lack of protection under Article 19(2).
• Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to speech and expression, while 19(2) allows the state
to impose reasonable restrictions The court found Section 66A overly broad, posing a
total chilling effect on free speech.
• Additionally, it read down Section 79, concerning intermediary liability, to address
issues between governments and online platforms.
Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab (1970)
• Here, the Court emphasized that any false statement that
lowers a person's respect in society can amount to
defamation. The judgment made it clear that the harm must
be to the social standing of the person. Even indirect harm to
reputation could attract penalties under defamation BNS
section 356.
T.V. Ramasubba Iyer v. A.M.A. Mohideen (1955)
• In this case, the Court clarified the role of truth as a defence
in defamation. It ruled that truth alone is not enough to
escape liability. The truth must be spoken or published for
the public good to be protected. This principle is critical even
under section 356 BNS today, where public interest justifies
truthful statements but personal attacks without purpose do
not.
THANK YOU