THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) 2023

IT brings several significant changes to offences against the State compared to the previous
Code of Criminal Procedure.

 Sedition: BNS removes the controversial offense of sedition (Section 124A of the
IPC). However, it introduces new provisions to penalize activities like inciting
secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, and encouraging feelings of
separatist activities, which could potentially cover similar acts punished under
sedition.
 Endangering Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity of India: This new offense covers acts
threatening the country's sovereignty, unity, and integrity, including exchanging
words or signs, electronic communication, or using financial means.

The BNS aims to:

 Modernize offences against the State to address emerging threats: new offences
like cybercrime and organized crime are included to adapt to evolving criminal trends.
 Balance security with individual rights: While addressing threats to national
security, the BNS aims to safeguard individual rights by removing provisions with
potential for misuse, like sedition.
 Streamline procedures and investigations: Faster investigation and prosecution
timelines are envisaged for offences against the State to ensure swift justice.
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE

CHAPTER VII

Section 147: Waging or Attempting to Wage War

Offence: Whoever, wages war or attempts or abets in waging war against the Government of
India.

Punishment: Death or life imprisonment, along with a fine.

Example: Participating in an insurrection (கிளர்ச்சி) against the Government of India

constitutes this offence.

Section 148 – Conspiracy to Commit Offences Under Section 147

Offence: Conspiring, within or outside India, to commit offences punishable under Section
147, or to overawe the government through criminal force or threats.

Punishment: Life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years, and a fine.

Explanation: Actual execution of the act is not necessary; mere conspiracy suffices.

Section 149 – Collecting Arms or Preparing for War

Offence: Collecting men, arms, or ammunition, or otherwise preparing to wage war against
the Government of India

Punishment: Life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years, and a fine.

Section 150 – Concealing to Facilitate the design to Wage War

Offence:

 Whoever, by any act or by illegal omission

 Conceals the existence of a design or
 Intending by such concealment to facilitate or
 Knowingly the concealment will facilitate
 The waging of such war

Punishment: Life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years, and a fine.

 Section 151 – Assaulting President, Governor, etc.

Offence: Assaulting or wrongfully restraining or overawes or attempts, the President,

Governor, or other officials with the intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful
power.

Punishment: Imprisonment for life or up to 7 years, and a fine.

Section 152 – Act Endangering Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity

Offence: Engaging in acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

Punishment: Imprisonment for life or up to7 years, and a fine.

Acts: by words either spoken or written, or signs, or visible representation or electronic

communication or by use of financial mean or otherwise excites or attempts to excites
secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities or encourage feelings of separatist
activities

Exception: Comments expressing against the measure of administrative or government “with

a view to obtain alteration by lawful means”, without exciting DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN
OFFENCE.

Section 153 – Waging War Against a Foreign State

Offence: Waging war against the government of any foreign state at peace with India.

Punishment: Imprisonment for life or up to 7 years, and a fine.

Section 154 – Depredation on Territories of Foreign State at peace

Offence: Committing depredation on the territories of a foreign state at peace with India.

Punishment: Imprisonment for life or up to 7 years, and a fine and forfeiture of any property
(used or intended to use or through depredation acquired).

Section 155 – Receiving Property Taken by War or Depredation

Offence: Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in Sections 153 and 154,
knowingly

Punishment: Imprisonment for life or up to 7 years, and a fine and forfeiture of property
 Section 156 – Public Servant Voluntarily Allowing Prisoner of state or war to Escape

Offence: A public servant voluntarily allowing a state prisoner or prisoner of war to escape.

Punishment: Imprisonment for life or up to 10 years, and a fine.

Section 157 – Public Servant Negligently Suffering Prisoner to Escape

Offence: A public servant negligently suffering a state prisoner or prisoner of war to escape.

Punishment: Simple imprisonment up to 3 years, and a fine.

Section 158 – Aiding Escape, Rescuing, or Harbouring Prisoner

Offence:

 Knowingly aiding or assisting a state prisoner or prisoner of war

 in escaping from lawful custody, rescuing or attempting to rescue such a prisoner,
 harbouring or concealing any such prisoner who has escaped,
 or offering or attempting to offer any resistance to the recapture of such prisoner.

Punishment: Imprisonment of life or may extend to 10 years and fine.

Explanation: State prisoner or prisoner of war, permitted parole within certain limits in
India, is said to escape from the lawful custody if he goes beyond the limits within which he
is allowed.

CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION
CHAPTERXIX

Ingredients of Criminal Intimidation

1. Threat: The accused must make a threat to another person.

2. Intent: The accused should have the intention to cause alarm or apprehension in the
person or someone in whom they have an interest.

3. Knowledge: The accused must have knowledge that their threat is likely to cause
such alarm or apprehension.
 Aspect Details

Section Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Title Criminal Intimidation

 Whoever threatens another by any means, with injury

 to his person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone
in whom that person is interested,
 with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person
Provision
 to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or
 to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do,
 as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat,
 is said to commit “criminal intimidation.”

 A threat
 To injure the reputation of the deceased person
 In whom the person threatened is interested
 Is within this section
Explanation Example
A knows that B is very close to her late father, who was a respected judge. A threatens
B by saying:
“If you don’t withdraw the police complaint, I’ll leak false information to the
press that your father took bribes during his service.”

Punishment Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both

If the threat is: (a) to cause death or grievous hurt; (b) to cause destruction of any
Aggravated property by fire; (c) to an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment or
Forms imprisonment upto 7 years or impute unchastity to a woman then it is treated as an
aggravated offence.

If the threat is to cause death, grievous hurt, or destruction of property by fire, or to

Punishment commit an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment:
(Aggravated)
➤ Punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, or fine, or both.

Criminal intimidation by an anonyms communication or having precaution to conceal

Anonymous
the name or abode (Home) of person from whom threat comes

Punishment for
Imprisonment may extend to 2 years + punishment for the provided offence
Anonymous

If A threatens B saying, “If you don’t resign from your job, I will get your sister
Illustration
kidnapped,” A has committed criminal intimidation under this section.
 Narender Kumar & Ors v. State (2012)

Issue:
The petitioners (Narender Kumar and others) were accused of entering the complainant’s premises
and threatening the complainant and his family.

Held:
This case is often cited to argue that criminal intimidation must be clearly articulated with:

 Specific threats,
 Intention to cause alarm,
 And real fear on part of the complainant.
 Reinforced the idea that vague and motivated complaints should not proceed to trial

Amulya Kumar Behera v. Nabaghana Behera Alias Nabina (1995)

1995 CriLJ 3559
Fact:
The complainant, Amulya Kumar Behera, alleged that on February 25, 1992, in a village
road, the accused persons surrounded him, abused him in filthy language, and threatened him.
He claimed that had the witnesses not intervened, he would have suffered further injuries in
addition to those inflicted by Nabaghana @ Nabina, one of the accused
Court held:
The High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused, stating that the complainant had not
established the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 506 of IPC/ 351of BNS.
The Court concluded that there was no material to show that the accused intended to cause
alarm to the complainant.
This case underscores the importance of proving both the threat and the intent to cause
alarm in cases of criminal intimidation. It clarifies that for an offence under Section 506 of
IPC /351of BNS to be made out, there must be clear evidence of the accused's intention to
cause alarm to the person threatened.
 Aspect Details

Section Section 356, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Title Defamation

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or visible

representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person,
Provision
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation
will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.

1. Making or publishing an imputation

Constituent 2. Through words (spoken/written), signs, or visuals
Elements 3. Concerning a person
4. With intention or knowledge that it would harm reputation

If A says, "B is a thief," knowing it is false, and intending others to think less of B
Illustration
— A has committed defamation under this section.

- Oral (spoken words)

Mode of - Written (articles, social media posts)
Communication - Signs (gestures)
- Visuals (cartoons, memes, graffiti, posters)

Mental Element Intention to harm, or knowledge / reasonable belief that it would harm the
(Mens Rea) person’s reputation

It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the

Explanation 1 imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended
to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or

Explanation 2
an association or collection of persons as such.

An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may

Explanation 3
amount to defamation.

No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation

directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or
Explanation -4 intellectual character, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his
Harm Defined caste or calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed
that the person’s body is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally
considered disgraceful.

Punishment Simple imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both or with community service

Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to

Clause (3)
believe that such matter is defamatory, shall be punished.
 Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.

Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing
Clause (4) defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished.

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

1. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Auto Shankar Case)

(1994) 6 SCC 632

Facts:
 A magazine, Nakkheeran, planned to publish the autobiography of a convicted serial
killer, Auto Shankar, which contained allegations against prison officials and
politicians.nThe State attempted to restrain publication, claiming it was defamatory
and invaded privacy.
Held:
 The Supreme Court held that public officials do not have the right to sue for
defamation for acts done in official capacity unless malice is proven. The Court
stated that the right to privacy does not extend to public acts of public officials.
 The freedom of the press includes the right to publish public records and information
of public interest.
Legal Significance:
 A landmark judgment balancing freedom of speech, right to privacy, and
defamation,Laid down the right to privacy as a constitutional right, though not
absolute.

2. KHUSHBOO V. KANNIAMMAL
(2010) 5 SCC 600
Facts:

 Actress Khushboo made public comments supporting pre-marital sex, leading to

multiple criminal complaints for defamation and indecency. She sought quashing of
all criminal proceedings.
Held:

 The Supreme Court quashed all complaints and emphasized that personal views, even
if controversial, do not amount to defamation unless a specific person or group is
targeted.

Legal Significance:
 Reinforced freedom of expression and ruled that vague general statements are not
defamatory.
 EXCEPTIONS UNDER DEFAMATION

S.No. Exception Example

Truth for Public Good – Statement must be true and made for Publishing facts about a
1 public good. politician’s criminal record in
Here Public good is a “question of fact” a news report

Public Conduct of Public Servants – Opinion about conduct of Criticizing a government

2 public servants in discharge of his public function or his officer's handling of a public
character. So far as character appears in that conduct and no issue
further.
Conduct in Public Questions – Fair opinion about any person's
3
conduct on public issues

Report of Court Proceedings – Publishing substantially true Media reporting on a court

4
report of judicial proceedings or its results verdict

A says z’s evidence on trial is

contradictory that he must
Merits of Case or Conduct of Witnesses – opinion on court be stupid (correct)
5 respecting the merits of the case, its decisions or conduct of A says what Z asserted is
any person(party/agent/witness), should be made in good faith false, I know him to be a
man without veracity
(wrong)

Merits of Public Performances – Review of books, plays, art A movie critic giving a
6
submitted to public negative review of a film

Censure by Lawful Authority – Any comment made in good

faith upon the conduct of a person against whom a person A manager scolding an
7
making comment has a lawful authority either conferred by employee for misconduct
law or lawful contract.

A teacher reporting
Accusation to Authority – Complaint made in good faith to a
8 suspected cheating to a
person in authority
school principal

A person warning their

Imputation for Protection of Interests – Statements to protect friend about someone’s
9
ones or others’ rights dishonest behaviour based
on facts

Telling a neighbour that a

Caution for Good of Person or Public – Warning someone out certain builder is known for
10
of concern or public good fraud, to prevent them being
deceived
 QUESTIONS

1. Which of the following is NOT a valid exception to defamation under BNS/IPC?

A) Imputation of truth made for the public good

B) Publication of court proceedings
C) Expression of opinion about public conduct of public servants
D) Personal insults made in private

2. Which of the following ingredients is NOT essential to prove criminal intimidation?

A) Threat to cause injury

B) Intent to cause alarm
C) Execution of the threat
D) Communication of the threat

3. An act that causes or is intended to cause disaffection against the Government of India may fall
under:

A) Defamation
B) Sedition
C) Unlawful assembly
D) Public nuisance

4. In criminal intimidation, “injury” as defined under the law includes injury to:

A) Person
B) Reputation
C) Property
D) All of the above

5. Which of the following is an essential element of defamation?

A) The statement must be true

B) The statement must be made to a public official
C) The statement must lower the reputation of a person in the eyes of others
D) The statement must be made in writing only

6. A statement which is defamatory but made in good faith and in public interest is:

A) Always punishable
B) Never punishable
C) Protected under exception to defamation
D) Treated as perjury

7. Which of the following would constitute an act of criminal intimidation?

A) Criticizing a political leader publicly

B) Threatening to burn someone’s house if they do not repay a loan
C) Giving a negative review on social media
D) Filing a civil suit for recovery of money