CLAT PG question bank
CLAT PG Criminal Law (BNS 2023) questions 43-63 of 85, with answer keys and explanations covering general exceptions, homicide, offences against property, women, the State, public order, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Coverage
Revise core LLB subjects through CLAT PG MCQs, passage-led questions, answer keys, explanations, statutes, and exam-oriented legal principles.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 introduces several new categories of offences that were absent from the Indian Penal Code or were dealt with under special statutes. Section 111 BNS defines organised crime as any continuing unlawful activity, including kidnapping, extortion, financial scams, cybercrime, and human trafficking, committed on behalf of a crime syndicate for individual or collective gain. A crime syndicate is defined as a group of two or more persons who, acting in concert, engage in continuing unlawful activity. Section 112 BNS creates the offence of petty organised crime for lower-level organised criminal activity such as pick-pocketing, ATM card fraud, and sale of counterfeit goods. Section 103(2) BNS specifically criminalises what has come to be known as mob lynching: the commission of murder by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on the basis of specified identity markers such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief. This provision carries a minimum punishment of seven years imprisonment, extendable to life or death. Section 113 BNS creates the offence of terrorist act, defined as an act intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or economic security of India, or to strike terror among the people, by means including explosives, biological agents, or interference with critical infrastructure. Financing of terrorism is separately criminalised under Section 113(3). These provisions coexist with existing special legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which continues to govern terrorism prosecutions before specialised courts.
3 years imprisonment
7 years imprisonment, extendable to life or death
Life imprisonment in all cases
Fine only
Correct answer: B. 7 years imprisonment, extendable to life or death
The passage states: 'This provision carries a minimum punishment of seven years imprisonment, extendable to life or death.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 103(2), 111, 112, 113
The BNS completely replaces the UAPA for terrorism cases
These provisions coexist; the BNS creates an ordinary criminal offence triable by regular courts while UAPA governs terrorism prosecutions before specialised courts
The UAPA takes precedence over BNS in all terrorism cases
The BNS applies to domestic terrorism while UAPA applies to cross-border terrorism
Correct answer: B. These provisions coexist; the BNS creates an ordinary criminal offence triable by regular courts while UAPA governs terrorism prosecutions before specialised courts
The passage states: 'These provisions coexist with existing special legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which continues to govern terrorism prosecutions before specialised courts.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 103(2), 111, 112, 113
Major organised crime by large syndicates
Petty organised crime such as pick-pocketing, atm card fraud, and sale of counterfeit goods, carried out by lower-level criminal organisations
White collar financial crime
Cybercrime by sophisticated hackers
Correct answer: B. Petty organised crime such as pick-pocketing, atm card fraud, and sale of counterfeit goods, carried out by lower-level criminal organisations
The passage states: 'Section 112 BNS creates the offence of petty organised crime for lower-level organised criminal activity such as pick-pocketing, ATM card fraud, and sale of counterfeit goods.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 103(2), 111, 112, 113
Sections 137 to 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 govern the offences of kidnapping and abduction. Section 137 BNS distinguishes two categories of kidnapping: kidnapping from India, which involves taking any person beyond India's limits without consent; and kidnapping from lawful guardianship, which involves taking or enticing a child or a person of unsound mind out of the keeping of a guardian without consent. Under the BNS, the term 'child' is uniformly defined as any person below eighteen years of age, replacing the inconsistent age thresholds that existed under the Indian Penal Code. The consent of the minor is irrelevant to the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship; only the guardian's consent matters. The Supreme Court in S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942) held that if a minor independently and voluntarily leaves the guardian's custody of her own accord, and the accused does not actively 'take' or 'entice' her to leave, the accused is not guilty of kidnapping. The Court emphasised the distinction between actively inducing a minor to leave and merely accommodating or assisting one who has already independently departed. Abduction, defined in Section 138 BNS, differs from kidnapping in that it applies to any person regardless of age, requires the use of force or fraudulent inducement to move the person, and is not an independent offence but a means to accomplish the purposes specified in Sections 139 to 144 BNS, such as abduction for the purpose of murder or to force into marriage.
Kidnapping of adults and kidnapping of minors
Kidnapping from India (taking any person beyond India's limits without consent) and kidnapping from lawful guardianship (taking a child or person of unsound mind from a guardian without consent)
Kidnapping by force and kidnapping by deception
Kidnapping for ransom and kidnapping for sexual offences
Correct answer: B. Kidnapping from India (taking any person beyond India's limits without consent) and kidnapping from lawful guardianship (taking a child or person of unsound mind from a guardian without consent)
The passage states: 'Section 137 BNS distinguishes two categories of kidnapping: kidnapping from India...and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 137-144 / S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC)
Sufficient to negate the offence of kidnapping if the minor is above 16 years
Irrelevant to the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship; only the guardian's consent matters
Relevant but not determinative depending on the minor's age
Always a complete defence to kidnapping charges
Correct answer: B. Irrelevant to the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship; only the guardian's consent matters
The passage states: 'The consent of the minor is irrelevant to the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship; only the guardian's consent matters.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 137-144 / S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC)
The minor had consented to the relationship
The minor independently and voluntarily left the guardian's custody on her own accord, and the accused did not actively take or entice her to leave
The accused had subsequently married the minor
The minor was above 15 years of age
Correct answer: B. The minor independently and voluntarily left the guardian's custody on her own accord, and the accused did not actively take or entice her to leave
The passage states: 'if a minor independently and voluntarily leaves the guardian's custody of her own accord, and the accused does not actively take or entice her to leave, the accused is not guilty of kidnapping.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 137-144 / S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC)
Applies only to children below 10 years of age
Applies to any person regardless of age, requires force or fraudulent inducement, and is not an independent offence but a means to accomplish specified illegal purposes
Requires a minimum of three accused persons acting together
Is always punishable regardless of the purpose for which it was committed
Correct answer: B. Applies to any person regardless of age, requires force or fraudulent inducement, and is not an independent offence but a means to accomplish specified illegal purposes
The passage states: 'Abduction...applies to any person regardless of age, requires the use of force or fraudulent inducement to move the person, and is not an independent offence but a means to accomplish the purposes specified in Sections 139 to 144 BNS.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 137-144 / S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC)
Any person below 16 years of age
Any person below 18 years of age, replacing inconsistent age thresholds that existed under the IPC
Any person below 21 years of age for kidnapping purposes
A definition that varies depending on the specific offence charged
Correct answer: B. Any person below 18 years of age, replacing inconsistent age thresholds that existed under the IPC
The passage states: 'Under the BNS, the term child is uniformly defined as any person below eighteen years of age, replacing the inconsistent age thresholds that existed under the Indian Penal Code.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 137-144 / S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC)
The death penalty in India is constitutionally valid but its imposition is governed by the 'rarest of rare' doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898), where the Constitutional Bench held that the death penalty does not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution, provided it is imposed only in the rarest of rare cases and the procedure for its imposition is just, fair, and reasonable. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 957), the Court gave concrete content to the 'rarest of rare' standard by identifying five categories of cases where death may be warranted: the manner of commission of murder (whether the murder was committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner); the motive for commission (whether the murder was committed for the purpose of gain or revenge); the anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime; the magnitude of the crime (multiple murders); and the personality of the victim (whether a child, helpless woman, or public figure). The Supreme Court in Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) departed from the earlier approach and held that sentencing courts must conduct a separate and thorough evaluation of mitigating circumstances of the accused. The Court held that the prosecution bears the burden of showing that mitigating circumstances are absent, and that personal characteristics of the accused such as age, mental health, socioeconomic background, and possibility of rehabilitation must be weighed. This represents a significant shift from a crime-centric to a criminal-centric approach in capital sentencing.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
Correct answer: B. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
The passage states: 'the rarest of rare doctrine [was] enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.'
Source note: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC) / Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC) / Manoj v. State of MP (2022 SC)
Three categories
Five categories: manner of commission, motive, anti-social nature, magnitude, and personality of victim
Seven categories
Only one category: most brutal murders
Correct answer: B. Five categories: manner of commission, motive, anti-social nature, magnitude, and personality of victim
The passage lists five categories: 'the manner of commission of murder...the motive for commission...the anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime...the magnitude of the crime...and the personality of the victim.'
Source note: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC) / Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC) / Manoj v. State of MP (2022 SC)
Whether death penalty is constitutional
Sentencing courts must conduct a separate and thorough evaluation of mitigating circumstances; the prosecution bears the burden of showing mitigating circumstances are absent
Whether the rarest of rare doctrine should be applied
Whether appellate courts can increase sentences from life to death
Correct answer: B. Sentencing courts must conduct a separate and thorough evaluation of mitigating circumstances; the prosecution bears the burden of showing mitigating circumstances are absent
The passage states: 'The Supreme Court in Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) departed from the earlier approach and held that sentencing courts must conduct a separate and thorough evaluation of mitigating circumstances.'
Source note: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC) / Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC) / Manoj v. State of MP (2022 SC)
Focus only on the facts of the crime committed
Personal characteristics of the accused such as age, mental health, socioeconomic background, and possibility of rehabilitation must be weighed alongside the nature of the crime
The accused's criminal record is the only mitigating factor
The victim's characteristics are ignored in sentencing
Correct answer: B. Personal characteristics of the accused such as age, mental health, socioeconomic background, and possibility of rehabilitation must be weighed alongside the nature of the crime
The passage describes the shift to 'a criminal-centric approach' involving 'personal characteristics of the accused such as age, mental health, socioeconomic background, and possibility of rehabilitation.'
Source note: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC) / Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC) / Manoj v. State of MP (2022 SC)
The accused, who must prove his good character
The prosecution, which must show mitigating circumstances are absent
The court, which must independently investigate the accused's background
The defence counsel, who must plead mitigating factors
Correct answer: B. The prosecution, which must show mitigating circumstances are absent
The passage states: 'the prosecution bears the burden of showing that mitigating circumstances are absent.'
Source note: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC) / Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC) / Manoj v. State of MP (2022 SC)
Criminal law recognises that when two or more persons participate in the commission of an offence, the law must determine the extent of each person's liability. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides for two distinct bases of constructive criminal liability. The first, under Section 3(5) BNS, arises from common intention: when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each is liable as if the act were done by him alone. The Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of UP (2001) 3 SCC 673 held that Section 34 IPC (now Section 3(5) BNS) requires a prior meeting of minds sharing the same intention, and is only a rule of evidence for fixing liability; it does not create a separate offence. The second basis is abetment under Sections 45-54 BNS. A person abets an offence by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. In Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 2828), the Supreme Court elaborated the test for abetment by instigation: there must be a direct or proximate act of incitement addressed to the person alleged to have been instigated. Mere cruelty or harshness by a husband that creates a background of unhappiness but falls short of active instigation does not constitute abetment of suicide. The law therefore requires a causal nexus between the abettor's act and the principal offence. A significant difference between abetment and common intention is that abetment may exist where the abettor is physically absent from the scene of the crime, while common intention under Section 3(5) BNS requires all accused to act in furtherance of the common intention at the time of commission.
All accused are physically present at the scene
The criminal act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused; each is liable as if the act were done by him alone
The accused persons are members of the same family
More than five persons are involved in the offence
Correct answer: B. The criminal act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused; each is liable as if the act were done by him alone
The passage states: 'when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each is liable as if the act were done by him alone.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 3(5), 45-54 / Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab / Suresh v. State of UP
Creates a substantive independent offence of acting in common intention
Is only a rule of evidence for fixing liability; it does not create a separate offence
Requires written proof of the agreement to act together
Applies only to murder cases
Correct answer: B. Is only a rule of evidence for fixing liability; it does not create a separate offence
The passage states: 'Section 34 IPC (now Section 3(5) BNS) requires a prior meeting of minds...and is only a rule of evidence for fixing liability; it does not create a separate offence.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 3(5), 45-54 / Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab / Suresh v. State of UP
Any emotional distress caused by the accused to the deceased
A direct or proximate act of incitement addressed to the person alleged to have been instigated
A written communication from the abettor to the principal offender
Prior criminal history of the accused showing a pattern of instigation
Correct answer: B. A direct or proximate act of incitement addressed to the person alleged to have been instigated
The passage states: 'there must be a direct or proximate act of incitement addressed to the person alleged to have been instigated.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 3(5), 45-54 / Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab / Suresh v. State of UP
Common intention is more serious while abetment is less serious
Abetment may exist where the abettor is physically absent; common intention under Section 3(5) BNS requires all accused to act in furtherance of the common intention at the time of commission
Abetment applies only to property offences while common intention applies to offences against persons
Common intention requires five or more persons while abetment requires only two
Correct answer: B. Abetment may exist where the abettor is physically absent; common intention under Section 3(5) BNS requires all accused to act in furtherance of the common intention at the time of commission
The passage states: 'abetment may exist where the abettor is physically absent from the scene of the crime, while common intention under Section 3(5) BNS requires all accused to act in furtherance of the common intention at the time of commission.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 3(5), 45-54 / Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab / Suresh v. State of UP
Courts are lenient towards husbands accused of domestic violence
Abetment requires a causal nexus between the abettor's act and the principal offence; general domestic unhappiness does not satisfy the requirement of a direct or proximate act of instigation directed at the specific act of suicide
Suicide is no longer a crime under BNS so abetment is also not a crime
The husband would need to have expressly told the wife to commit suicide
Correct answer: B. Abetment requires a causal nexus between the abettor's act and the principal offence; general domestic unhappiness does not satisfy the requirement of a direct or proximate act of instigation directed at the specific act of suicide
The passage states: 'The law therefore requires a causal nexus between the abettor's act and the principal offence.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 3(5), 45-54 / Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab / Suresh v. State of UP
Sections 127 to 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, deal with offences restricting the freedom of movement and personal liberty of individuals. Wrongful restraint under Section 127 BNS prevents a person from moving in a particular direction while still allowing movement in others; wrongful confinement under Section 128 BNS prevents movement in any direction, completely limiting the person within certain limits. Both offences are graduated, with longer durations attracting enhanced punishment: Section 130 BNS provides for enhanced punishment when confinement exceeds three days, and Section 131 BNS further enhances punishment when it exceeds ten days. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 137 BNS is a distinct offence requiring that a child (now uniformly defined as a person below 18 years in Section 2(3) BNS) be taken or enticed out of the keeping of a lawful guardian without consent. The Supreme Court in S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942) held that where a minor leaves a guardian's custody voluntarily and independently, and the accused merely accommodates the minor without actively taking or enticing her, the accused may not be guilty of kidnapping. However, in Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1973 SC 2313), the Court held that an accused who retains a minor who has come to him, without attempting to return her to her guardians when there is the opportunity and ability to do so, may be held to have 'taken' the minor within the meaning of Section 361 IPC (now Section 137 BNS).
Wrongful restraint requires physical force while confinement does not
Wrongful restraint prevents movement in a particular direction while allowing movement in others; wrongful confinement prevents movement in any direction, completely limiting the person
Wrongful restraint applies only to adults while confinement applies to minors
There is no meaningful difference between the two offences
Correct answer: B. Wrongful restraint prevents movement in a particular direction while allowing movement in others; wrongful confinement prevents movement in any direction, completely limiting the person
The passage states: 'Wrongful restraint...prevents a person from moving in a particular direction while still allowing movement in others; wrongful confinement...prevents movement in any direction, completely limiting the person within certain limits.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 127-144 / S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras / Thakorlal Vadgama
One day
Ten days
Three days
Seven days
Correct answer: B. Ten days
The passage states: 'Section 131 BNS further enhances punishment when it exceeds ten days.'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 127-144 / S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras / Thakorlal Vadgama
A person below 16 years for boys and 14 years for girls
A person below 18 years, uniformly defined under Section 2(3) BNS
A person below 21 years in certain cases
A person who is dependent on a guardian regardless of age
Correct answer: B. A person below 18 years, uniformly defined under Section 2(3) BNS
The passage states: 'a child (now uniformly defined as a person below 18 years in Section 2(3) BNS).'
Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 127-144 / S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras / Thakorlal Vadgama