Detailed Notes for BNS (Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita) Mid-term Exam of LLB MSU (unofficial) For Unit 1 & 2 Only
(The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda) Dec 2024
IMP:
Bill 121 (Ek 2 Ek)
IPC 1860 ACT no - 45 BNS Act NO-45
Chapter in BNS - 20 (Chapter in IPC 23 old) Section - 358 (511 old) Signature date 25th Dec 2023. ( Sign hua - Christmas ) Comme date 1 July 2024 (Lagu hua) IMP:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=old1mORa8xY
https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S001608/P001744/M027821/ET/1521103766ElementsofCrime-Final.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvRYop0bwL8
1.1 Nature and Concept of Crime
Crime is defined as an unlawful act punishable by the state. It involves an act or omission that violates a law, is harmful to the public, and incurs legal consequences. The concept of crime combines moral and legal dimensions to address harm to individuals and society.
Key Characteristics: (A-M-H-P)
1. Act (Actus Reus): The physical act or omission.
2. Mental State (Mens Rea): The guilty mind or intention.
3. Harm: Damage caused to an individual or society.
4. Prohibition by Law: The act must be prohibited by law.
Case Study:
- R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) : A case where necessity was pleaded as a defense in a murder trial. The court held that killing a person for survival (cannibalism) is still a crime.
1.2 Constituent Elements of Crime
1.2.1 Act to be Voluntary
The act must be done voluntarily and with free will. If coerced, it may not constitute a crime.
- Example: A person forced to steal under threat of harm may not be held liable.
- Relevant Section: Section 94 of BNS provides immunity for acts done under compulsion.
1.2.2 Concomitant Circumstances
These are the surrounding facts that determine the context of the crime.
- Example: Self-defense during an attack can absolve a person of liability under Section 96 of BNS.
1.2.3 Actus Reus
The physical component of the crime (act or omission).
- Example: Taking someone's wallet is an actus reus for theft.
- Case Study: *State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub* (1980): Preparation and proximity to committing a crime were discussed.
1.2.4 Mens Rea
The mental element or intent to commit a crime. Mens rea varies by crime.
- Example: Intending to kill someone distinguishes murder from accidental death.
- Case Study: *R v. Cunningham* (1957): Mens rea was established as recklessness or intent.
1.3 Stages of Crime
Crimes typically progress through the following stages:
1.3.1 Intention (not punishable)
The formation of the idea to commit a crime. Intention is the mental stage where the offender decides to act unlawfully. Intention itself is not punishable unless combined with some overt act.
Example: A person deciding to rob a bank but not acting on it is at the stage of intention.
Case Study: Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958): Highlighted the distinction between mere intention and preparation.
1.3.2 Preparation(not punishable)
Making arrangements to commit the crime. Generally, preparation is not punishable unless it involves specific offenses like counterfeiting or waging war against the state.
Example: Buying weapons and creating a plan to rob a bank.
Relevant Section: Section 121 of BNS penalizes preparation for waging war.
Case Study: R v. Gill (1963): Preparation versus attempt was discussed in the context of kidnapping.
1.3.3 Attempt
An act done towards committing the crime but failing to achieve the final result. Attempt is punishable under Section 511 of BNS as it demonstrates the offender’s intent and proximity to committing the crime.
Example: Firing a gun at someone but missing the target.
Case Study: Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961): Established the distinction between preparation and attempt.
1.3.4 Actual Commission of Offense
The final stage where the crime is successfully committed. Once the offense is committed, the complete liability arises under the law.
Example: Successfully robbing a bank.
Case Study: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980): Discussed the culmination of criminal acts.
1.3.5 Tests for Determining Attempt
1.3.5.1 Proximity Rule (Kitna nazdik hai)
This test determines how close the act was to the actual commission of the crime. The act must be proximate, and not merely preparatory.
Example: Loading a gun and pointing it at the victim but not firing can be considered an attempt under this rule.
Case Study: R v. Eagleton (1855): This case laid the foundation for the proximity rule.
1.3.5.2 Equivocality Test ( Intent kitni hai)
Note: a test used in criminal cases to differentiate between preparation and attempt.
This test evaluates whether the act unequivocally indicates the intention to commit the crime.
Example: Breaking into a house with burglary tools clearly indicates intent.
Case Study: R v. Walker and Hayles (1990): The act of throwing someone from a height showed unequivocal intent to harm.
1.3.5.3 Social Danger Test ( Society mai impact)
This test measures whether the act posed a significant danger to society.
Example: Attempting to set fire to a public building constitutes a social danger.
Case Study: R v. Malkiat Singh (1959): Attempted smuggling of goods posed a social risk.
1.3.5.4 Impossibility Test (Bank locker lootna per looker mai kuch hai hi nahi hai)
This test examines situations where the crime could not be completed due to factual or legal impossibility, but the attempt itself was criminal.
Example: Attempting to steal from an empty safe.
Case Study: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980): Acts approaching the crime, even if impossible to complete, are punishable
1.4 Historical Background of BNS
The Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) is a modernized version of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
enacted to
- address the changing dynamics of society and
- to reflect India’s constitutional and
- cultural values. The IPC, which was drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay, served as the foundational
penal law in India for over 160 years. However, with evolving societal needs and legal challenges,
the necessity for a revised and indigenous penal code became apparent.
Key Features of BNS:
- Emphasizes victim-centric justice.
- Incorporates principles of restorative justice.
- Modernizes definitions of crimes to address new-age offenses such as cybercrimes.
Example:
The BNS incorporates provisions for crimes such as identity theft and cyberstalking,
which were not envisaged in the IPC.
Case Study:
The historical importance of the IPC in cases such as *K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra*
(1959), a landmark case under Section 302 IPC, highlights the need for modernizing laws
to cater to societal evolution.
1.5 Preliminary Provisions (Section 1-3)
Section 1: Title and Extent
Defines the title and territorial applicability of the BNS. It applies to all citizens of India and
to offenses committed within Indian territory.
- Example: An act of theft committed in Mumbai falls under BNS jurisdiction.
Section 2: Punishment of Offenses within India
This provision ensures that any offense committed on Indian soil is punishable under the BNS.
- Example: A person committing fraud in Delhi will be tried under BNS.
Section 3: Punishment of Offenses beyond India
Covers offenses committed by Indian citizens or aboard Indian ships or aircraft outside India.
- Example: An Indian citizen committing a crime on an international flight operated by
Air India will be subject to BNS.
2.1 Punishments
Punishments are the state’s response to crimes to maintain order and provide justice.
The BNS defines various forms of punishment to achieve specific objectives.
2.1.1 Aims and Objects of Punishments (D-P-R-R-C)
1. Deterrence Theory: To discourage others from committing similar crimes.
2. Prevention Theory: To incapacitate the habitual offenders
3. Retribution Theory : To provide justice to victims by penalizing the offender. (Eye for Eye)
4. Reformation: To rehabilitate the offender and reintegrate them into society.
5. Combination Approach: Balances deterrence, prevention, retribution, and reformation.
2.1.2 Deterrent Theory ( Nirbhaya case punishment - death penalty)
- Definition: Punishment as a warning to society to prevent similar crimes.
- Example: Harsh sentences for heinous crimes such as murder.
- Case Study: *State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh* (2012) upheld the death penalty to
deter heinous crimes.
2.1.3 Preventive Theory
- Definition: Focuses on incapacitating the offender to prevent future crimes.
- Example: Imprisonment of habitual offenders to restrict their freedom.
- Case Study: *Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra* (1983) highlighted the
need to prevent recidivism through corrective detention.
2.1.4 Retributive Theory
- Definition: "An eye for an eye" approach to punishment.
- Example: Life imprisonment for murder.
- Case Study: *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* (1980) discussed retributive
justice in the context of the death penalty.
2.1.5 Reformative Theory
- Definition: Aims to reform the offender.
- Example: Educational programs for prisoners.
- Case Study: *Mohammed Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh* (1977) emphasized reformation.
2.1.6 Multiple Approach Theory (Punishment + Fine + Education)
- Definition: Combines various theories to address crime comprehensively.
- Example: Sentencing that includes imprisonment, fines, and counseling.
- Case Study: Courts often use this approach to balance societal and individual justice needs.
2.2 Sections 4-13
Section 4: Extension of Code to Extraterritorial Offenses
Applies BNS provisions to crimes committed outside India by Indian nationals. E.g Indian log bhar jake crime kare to India ka log lage ga... Koi Hindi bahar jake
3 shadi nahi kar sakta as technically he is hindu and from india bhale hi bahar 5 shadi kar sakte ho. This section explains that the IPC applies to offenses committed outside India by: • Indian citizens. • Persons on Indian-registered ships or aircraft. • Those committing offenses against India or its citizens abroad.
Section 5: Application of Code to Laws in Force
Clarifies that BNS provisions do not override special laws unless expressly stated.
Sections 6-13: Definitions and Clarifications
Defines critical legal terms such as:
- Offense: Any act punishable under BNS.
- Public Servant: Officials involved in state duties.
2.3 General Exceptions (Mistake of Fact,Insanity and Trivial Acts)
These exceptions provide defenses to criminal liability under specific circumstances.
Section 76: Mistake of Fact
- Definition: Actions done under a genuine mistake.
- Example: A soldier firing under mistaken orders.
- Case Study: *R v. Tolson* (1889): Mistaken belief in the death of a spouse.
Section 84: Insanity (INSANE- PAGAL) Defense
- Definition: Exempts acts committed by persons of unsound mind.
- Example: A schizophrenic person committing a crime.
- Case Study: *R v. McNaughten* (1843): Established the insanity defense.
Section 95: Trivial Acts (Choti matter)
- Definition: Minor acts not worthy of criminalization.
- Example: Pushing someone lightly in a crowd.
- Case Study: *Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab* (1988).
2.4 A-bet-ment (assistant) , Criminal Conspiracy (, and Attempt
Abetment
- Definition: Assisting or encouraging another to commit a crime.
- Relevant Sections: Sections 107-120 of BNS.
- Example: Aiding in planning a robbery.
- Case Study: *Kehar Singh v. Union of India* (1988): Discussed abetment in
Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
Criminal Conspiracy
- Definition: Agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime.
- Relevant Section: Section 120A of BNS.
- Example: Two people plotting a terrorist attack.
- Case Study: *Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab* (1977): Defined conspiracy requirements.
Attempt (Attempt to Murder)
- Definition: Acts done with intent to commit a crime but falling short of actual commission.
- Relevant Section: Section 511 of BNS.
- Example: Trying to poison someone but failing.
- Case Study: *Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar* (1961): Distinguished between
preparation and attempt.
Unit: 3
MCQ for prep
What is the act number of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS) 2024?
- (A) 121
- (B) 45
- (C) 358
- (D) 511
- Correct Answer: (B) 45
- Explanation: The BNS was assigned Act No. 45.
When will the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS) 2024 come into effect?
- (A) 25th December 2023
- (B) 1st July 2024
- (C) 1st January 2024
- (D) 15th August 2024
- Correct Answer: (B) 1st July 2024
- Explanation: The signature date of the act is 25th December 2023, but it will be enforced starting 1st July 2024.
Nature and Concept of Crime
Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of a crime under BNS?
- (A) Actus Reus
- (B) Mens Rea
- (C) Harm
- (D) Consent
- Correct Answer: (D) Consent
- Explanation: The key characteristics of a crime are Actus Reus (act), Mens Rea (mental state), Harm, and Prohibition by law, collectively referred to as A-M-H-P.
Which case involved the defense of necessity in a murder trial?
- (A) R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)
- (B) R v. Cunningham (1957)
- (C) Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961)
- (D) State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980)
- Correct Answer: (A) R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)
- Explanation: This case addressed the plea of necessity in a murder trial, ruling that killing for survival is still a crime.
Stages of Crime
Which stage of crime is punishable under Section 511 of BNS?
- (A) Intention
- (B) Preparation
- (C) Attempt
- (D) Actual Commission of Offense
- Correct Answer: (C) Attempt
- Explanation: Section 511 of BNS penalizes attempts to commit crimes, as they demonstrate intent and proximity to the offense.
What is the test to determine the societal impact of an attempted crime?
- (A) Proximity Rule
- (B) Equivocality Test
- (C) Social Danger Test
- (D) Impossibility Test
- Correct Answer: (C) Social Danger Test
- Explanation: The Social Danger Test evaluates whether an act posed a significant risk to society, e.g., attempting to set fire to a public building.
Historical Background and Key Features
Who drafted the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was replaced by BNS?
- (A) Lord Macaulay
- (B) John Stuart Mill
- (C) Warren Hastings
- (D) Sir William Jones
- Correct Answer: (A) Lord Macaulay
- Explanation: Lord Macaulay drafted the IPC in 1860, which served as the foundational penal law for over 160 years.
What is a significant addition in BNS to address modern crimes?
- (A) Restorative justice
- (B) Cybercrimes
- (C) Punitive measures
- (D) Preventive theories
- Correct Answer: (B) Cybercrimes
- Explanation: BNS includes provisions for modern offenses like identity theft and cyberstalking, which were absent in IPC.
Punishment Theories
Which theory of punishment focuses on the rehabilitation of the offender?
- (A) Deterrent Theory
- (B) Preventive Theory
- (C) Retributive Theory
- (D) Reformative Theory
- Correct Answer: (D) Reformative Theory
- Explanation: The Reformative Theory aims to reform the offender and reintegrate them into society through measures like educational programs.
Which case upheld the death penalty to deter heinous crimes?
- (A) State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012)
- (B) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
- (C) Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983)
- (D) Mohammed Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977)
- Correct Answer: (A) State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012)
- Explanation: This case justified the death penalty as a deterrent to heinous crimes like murder.
General Exceptions
Which section of BNS provides immunity for acts done under compulsion?
- (A) Section 94
- (B) Section 96
- (C) Section 84
- (D) Section 76
- Correct Answer: (A) Section 94
- Explanation: Section 94 of BNS provides immunity for acts committed under coercion or compulsion.
Under which section can an act by an insane person be exempted from liability?
- (A) Section 76
- (B) Section 84
- (C) Section 95
- (D) Section 96
- Correct Answer: (B) Section 84
- Explanation: Section 84 exempts acts committed by individuals of unsound mind.
Abetment, Conspiracy, and Attempt
Which section defines criminal conspiracy under BNS?
- (A) Section 107
- (B) Section 511
- (C) Section 120A
- (D) Section 95
- Correct Answer: (C) Section 120A
- Explanation: Section 120A defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime.
Which case is associated with distinguishing preparation from an attempt?
- (A) R v. Gill (1963)
- (B) Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961)
- (C) State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980)
- (D) Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958)
- Correct Answer: (B) Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961)
- Explanation: This case highlighted the distinction between preparation and an attempt to commit a crime.
Thank you it's really helpful for me 😊
ReplyDeleteWelcome, I hope we will get an easy paper tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThese detailed notes on Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are extremely helpful for law students navigating the latest legal reforms. For those looking to pursue legal education with updated curriculum and expert faculty, the Best LLB College in Allahabad – Mahatma Law College – is a top recommendation. The college emphasizes both theoretical understanding and practical application of evolving legal frameworks like BNS.
ReplyDelete