Criminal Law (BNS 2023) MCQs for Judiciary, Page 2

Correct answer: B. When there is apprehension of: robbery, house-breaking by night, mischief by fire or explosive or hazardous substance on buildings, tents or vessels used as human dwelling, or theft, mischief or house-trespass which reasonably causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt

Section 42 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Section 103 IPC) provides the circumstances where the right of private defence of PROPERTY extends to causing death: (1) Robbery (not merely theft); (2) House-breaking by night; (3) Mischief by fire or explosive substance on any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling, place of worship, or place for custody of property; (4) Theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence. In all OTHER cases of defending property, the right extends only to causing any harm other than death (Section 43 BNS corresponding to Section 104 IPC). This reflects the principle that human life is more precious than property: the right to take a life in defence of property is much more restricted than in defence of the body. Key case: Bhikari v. State of UP (1966 SC) held that the right of private defence must be distinguished from self-help which is not permitted.

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 42, 43

Correct answer: B. The act must be done in pursuance of, or in accordance with, a judgment or order of a Court of Justice; the court must have jurisdiction to give such a judgment or order.

Section 30 BNS 2023 (Section 78 IPC): 'Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice, if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had jurisdiction.' Key conditions: (1) Act done in pursuance of a court order; (2) Order still in force when the act was done; (3) Done in good faith; (4) Protection extends even where the court had NO JURISDICTION, provided the actor in good faith believed the court had jurisdiction. Example: a jailer who detains a person under a detention order that turns out to have been passed by a court without jurisdiction is protected under Section 30 BNS if he acted in good faith. This provision reflects the need to protect public servants and others who rely on court orders.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 30

Correct answer: B. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt if done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though the act may not be strictly justifiable; and there is no right of private defence against a public servant or person acting under his authority where there is time to have recourse to protection of public authorities

Section 36 BNS 2023 (Section 99 IPC) states: 'There is no right of private defence: (a) against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law; (b) against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office; (c) in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.' Three key limitations: (1) Acts by public servants in good faith (even if slightly wrong) cannot be resisted with private defence force; (2) Acts directed by public servants in good faith are protected; (3) Where there is TIME to seek public authority protection, private defence is not available. In Salim Zia v. State of UP (1979), the Court held that the right of private defence is not a substitute for an organised police force.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 36

Correct answer: B. Instigating, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the commission of the offence; abetment requires an act of engagement with the substantive offence, not mere acquiescence or knowledge

Section 45 BNS 2023 (Section 107 IPC) defines abetment as doing a thing by: (1) INSTIGATION: actively inciting or encouraging the commission of the offence by words, hints, or conduct; (2) CONSPIRACY: engaging in a conspiracy with one or more persons for the doing of that thing, where an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy; (3) INTENTIONAL AID: intentionally aiding the commission of the act by any act or illegal omission. Section 45 Explanation 2: the abettor must have knowledge of the circumstances of the abetted act; an innocent assistance without knowledge is not abetment. Section 46 BNS (Section 108 IPC): abettor is a person who abets the commission of an offence OR an act which would be an offence if committed by a person capable in law of committing an offence. Key case: Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 2828) on abetment of suicide where the Supreme Court held that for abetment of suicide, there must be a direct instigation; merely being a cruel husband is not enough.

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 45, 46

Correct answer: B. For abetment of suicide, there must be a direct or proximate act of instigation; the abettor must have actively incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide.

Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 2828) is the leading case on abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC; corresponding to Section 108 BNS). The Supreme Court held: (1) There must be a direct, proximate act of instigation; (2) Mere cruelty or harassment by a husband (relevant for domestic violence prosecution) does not by itself amount to instigation to commit suicide; (3) The connection between the abettor's act and the deceased's act of suicide must be direct and proximate; (4) Merely creating an atmosphere of unhappiness or driving someone to despair is not the same as inciting suicide. The Court applied the meaning of 'instigate' which means to actively urge, impel or provoke. This was followed in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) where the Court again held that cruelty alone does not constitute abetment without proof of direct instigation.

Source note: Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 2828)

Correct answer: B. An agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means; the agreement itself constitutes the offence once there is a meeting of minds, and no overt act is necessary (for serious conspiracies); however, mere agreement to commit a petty offence is not criminal conspiracy unless accompanied by an act in pursuance

Section 61 BNS 2023 (Section 120A IPC): 'When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done: (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.' Key aspects: (1) Meeting of minds between two or more persons; (2) The agreement can be to commit an illegal act OR a legal act by illegal means; (3) For conspiracy to commit an OFFENCE: no overt act is needed; the agreement itself is the offence; (4) For other conspiracies (legal act by illegal means): an overt act by at least one conspirator is required. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC 2583) (Rajiv Gandhi assassination case) is the leading case on criminal conspiracy.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 61

Correct answer: B. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstances showing a shared criminal design.

State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC 2583) arose from the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive principles on criminal conspiracy: (1) Proof by circumstantial evidence is sufficient; direct evidence of the agreement is not essential; (2) Conspirators need not know every detail, but each must intend the common unlawful object; (3) Once a conspiracy is proved, all acts, words, and writings of any conspirator in execution of the common design are admissible against all other conspirators; (4) Membership of a conspiracy continues until the conspiracy is abandoned or completed; (5) A 'hub and spoke' conspiracy is recognised: not every conspirator meets every other, but they all participate in a common unlawful scheme. Section 47 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Section 109 IPC) on punishment for abetment is relevant here: abetment of a crime is punishable even if the crime is not committed.

Source note: State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC 2649)

Correct answer: B. Half the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence, or one-half the maximum fine, or both, or any lesser punishment specifically provided for the attempt under any particular section

Section 62 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Section 511 IPC): 'Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Sanhita with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Sanhita for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.' Section 62 applies as a residual provision where no specific punishment for attempt is expressly provided. Many BNS offences provide specific punishment for attempts (e.g., murder attempt). The key requirement for an attempt: an overt act must have been done 'towards the commission of the offence.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 62

Correct answer: B. The 'proximity test': an act is an attempt when it is so closely proximate to the completed offence that, but for some interruption, it would have led to the completion of the offence; the accused must have moved beyond preparation into the stage of actual execution with the result that failure was possible only by intervention of some extraneous factor

State of Maharashtra v. Mohammad Yakub (1980) 3 SCC 57 arose from attempted smuggling of silver across the Indian border. The Supreme Court articulated the test for attempt: the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to commit the crime AND had taken an act or acts sufficiently proximate to the completed offence such that but for some external intervention, the offence would have been completed. Multiple tests have been discussed in Indian jurisprudence: (1) Proximity test (most widely applied): how close is the act to the completed offence? (2) Impossible attempt doctrine: in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648, the Court held that an attempt to commit suicide (now decriminalised) was an offence requiring an overt act beyond mere preparation. (3) Substantial step test (American model): was the act a substantial step towards commission? The BNS Section 62 requires 'any act towards the commission of the offence' which incorporates the proximity test.

Source note: State of Maharashtra v. Mohammad Yakub (1980) 3 SCC 57

Correct answer: B. Abetment from outside India of an offence within India is punishable.

Section 48 BNS 2023 is a NEWLY INTRODUCED PROVISION with no equivalent in the original IPC. It provides: 'A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Sanhita who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.' Additionally, the provision addresses the converse: abetment from outside India for an offence within India. This provision addresses the problem of persons who instigate offences from abroad using modern communication technologies (internet, phone calls, encrypted messaging). In the era of transnational crime, organised crime syndicates, and terrorism, this provision is essential. The provision overcomes the jurisdictional limitation of the old IPC which was silent on abetment from outside India. This is particularly relevant for cybercrime abetment, terror financing, and organised crime direction from abroad.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 48 (New Provision)

Correct answer: B. The general rule is that if there are only two alleged conspirators and one is acquitted, the conviction of the other becomes legally untenable since conspiracy requires at least two persons; however, if there are more than two conspirators and some are acquitted, the conviction of others may still stand

The principle that conspiracy requires at least two persons ('when two or more persons agree') means that if all parties to an alleged conspiracy are tried together and one is acquitted, the other cannot be convicted of conspiracy with that person alone. However, the law is nuanced: (1) If there were more than two alleged conspirators and only some are tried/acquitted, others may still be convicted based on their agreement with those who are not acquitted; (2) If one conspirator is tried separately or was never charged, the other can be convicted provided the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt that there was an agreement with at least one other person; (3) The acquittal of one does not automatically acquit the other if the factual evidence is different for each. In Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra (1965) SC, this principle was discussed in the context of multiple accused in a criminal conspiracy case. The key is whether at the time of conviction, there remain at least two persons who can be said to have been parties to the agreement.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 61 / Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra (1965)

Correct answer: B. Under Section 50 BNS, where an abettor is present at the time when the abetted offence is committed, he is deemed to have aided and facilitated its commission, thereby potentially being held liable as if he had himself committed the offence

Section 50 BNS 2023 (Section 114 IPC): 'Whenever any person, who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.' The effect: an abettor who is PRESENT at the scene of the abetted offence is treated more severely than a mere abettor; his presence elevates his liability from that of an abettor to that of a principal offender. This reflects the principle that presence encourages, facilitates, and emboldens the principal offender. The provision is used to hold masterminds and handlers responsible when they observe the execution of the plan they abetted, even if they did not physically commit the offence. It must be read alongside Section 3(5) BNS (common intention) which also elevates liability of persons who act in furtherance of a common intention.

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 47, 50

Correct answer: B. Whether Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) was constitutionally valid and whether Article 21 included a 'right to die'; the Court overruled the earlier P.

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648 (Five-Judge Constitutional Bench) was a landmark case that overruled P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) which had held that Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) was unconstitutional as violating Article 21 (right to life). In Gian Kaur, the Supreme Court held: (1) Article 21 guarantees the right to LIFE and personal liberty; it does not include the right to die; (2) The 'right to die' is inconsistent with the positive concept of the right to life; (3) Therefore Section 309 IPC was not unconstitutional; (4) Abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC was also upheld as constitutional. Despite this ruling, Parliament through the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (Section 115) effectively decriminalised suicide by creating a rebuttable presumption that persons attempting suicide are suffering from mental illness. The BNS 2023 ultimately deleted Section 309 from the statute, completing the legislative decriminalisation.

Source note: Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648

Correct answer: B. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone; common intention requires a prior meeting of minds with a shared purpose

Section 3(5) BNS 2023 (Section 34 IPC): 'When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.' Key requirements: (1) A criminal act must have been done; (2) It must have been done by SEVERAL persons (minimum two); (3) In FURTHERANCE of a common intention; (4) There must be a PRIOR MEETING OF MINDS: not merely simultaneous action. In Suresh v. State of UP (2001) 3 SCC 673, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 34 IPC is only a rule of evidence relating to liability; it does not create a new offence. The test for common intention: (a) was there a meeting of minds before the act? (b) did each accused share the same intention? (c) was the act done in furtherance of that common intention? Mere simultaneous action without prior meeting of minds is insufficient for Section 3(5) BNS.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 3(5) / Suresh v. State of UP (2001)

Correct answer: B. Section 3(5) BNS (common intention) requires a prior meeting of minds with a shared intention and can apply with as few as two persons; Section 190 BNS (common object, unlawful assembly) requires an assembly of five or more persons with a common object listed in Section 189 BNS, and liability attaches to all members of the unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object even without prior meeting of minds

Suresh v. State of UP (2001) 3 SCC 673 is the key case distinguishing Section 34 IPC and Section 149 IPC. The Supreme Court held: (1) SECTION 34 IPC (Section 3(5) BNS): requires prior meeting of minds; minimum 2 persons; common intention must be formed BEFORE the act; all must share the SAME intention; (2) SECTION 149 IPC (Section 190 BNS): requires unlawful assembly of 5 or more; common object as defined in Section 141 IPC (Section 189 BNS); liability attaches to ALL MEMBERS for acts done in prosecution of the common object; liability also attaches for acts done which the members KNEW WERE LIKELY to be committed in prosecution of the common object even if not the shared object; (3) Key difference: under Section 149, a member is liable even if he did not share the specific intention behind the act, provided he was a member of the unlawful assembly and knew the act was likely. Section 34 requires actual shared intention.

Source note: Suresh v. State of UP (2001) 3 SCC 673 / BNS 2023 Sections 3(5), 190

Correct answer: B. An assembly of five or more persons whose common object is one of the five objects listed in Section 189 BNS: using criminal force against the State or its functionaries; resisting the execution of law or legal process; committing mischief, criminal trespass or other offences; obtaining possession of property by force; compelling someone by force to do what they are not legally bound to do or omit what they are legally entitled to do

Section 189 BNS 2023 (Section 141 IPC) defines unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons having one of five common objects: (1) To overawe, by criminal force or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or any public servant; (2) To resist the execution of any law or legal process; (3) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence; (4) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to obtain, or to get possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right; (5) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Section 190 BNS: every member of an unlawful assembly is liable for acts done in prosecution of the common object. Section 191 BNS: liability for acts known to be likely to be committed.

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 189, 190, 191

Correct answer: B. Murder committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on the basis of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground; the offence carries a minimum imprisonment of 7 years, extendable to life imprisonment or death

Section 103(2) BNS 2023 is a NEWLY INTRODUCED PROVISION specifically targeting mob lynching. Elements: (1) Murder under Section 103 BNS; (2) Committed by a GROUP OF FIVE OR MORE PERSONS; (3) Acting in concert; (4) On the basis of specified identity markers: race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief, or any other SIMILAR GROUND. Punishment: every member of the group who commits such murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with death, with a minimum of 7 years imprisonment. The provision was introduced in response to numerous mob lynching incidents across India, particularly against persons from specific religious, caste, and social communities. Before the BNS, such cases were prosecuted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly), which did not specifically recognise the identity-based motive. The new provision recognises hate crime and bias-motivated violence as an aggravated form of murder.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 103(2)

Correct answer: B. The principle that where a criminal act is done by several persons but only one benefits, each person in furtherance of the common intention is equally liable; this extends common intention liability to benefit-directed conspiracies

Sections 3(5) through 3(9) BNS 2023 comprehensively deal with joint and constructive liability. Section 3(5): common intention (basic provision). Section 3(6): persons acting with a common intention making themselves jointly guilty. Section 3(7): when criminal acts committed in pursuit of the common intention vary from what was anticipated, the person common to both is still liable. Section 3(8): where several persons have a common intention of committing an offence and the offence is committed in pursuit of that intention, each is deemed to have committed the act done by any one of them in furtherance of the common intention regardless of who physically performed the act. Section 3(9): the constructive joint liability extends to all members even if one of them performs an act or crime for the personal benefit of that one member, provided it was done in furtherance of the common intention and was foreseeable as a consequence. These provisions together create a comprehensive framework for joint criminal liability.

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 3(5)-3(9)

Correct answer: B. Common intention can be formed instantly at the time of the act itself; it does not require a long prior planning period.

Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 2 SCC 827 is a key Supreme Court decision on Section 34 IPC (Section 3(5) BNS). The Court held that common intention can be formed INSTANTLY at the spur of the moment; it does not require elaborate prior planning. A sudden quarrel in which two or more persons simultaneously decide to attack the victim can give rise to common intention even without any prior conspiracy. However, the Court also held: (1) The court must find positive evidence of the meeting of minds; mere simultaneous action is not sufficient; (2) Common intention must be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the act; (3) Each accused must have participated in the criminal act in some way in furtherance of the common intention. This decision established the doctrine that 'common intention' is not synonymous with 'premeditation'; it can be spontaneous. The BNS Section 3(5) inherits this principle.

Source note: Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 2 SCC 827

Correct answer: B. An act done with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security of India or to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, by using bombs, explosives, or various other dangerous means; also includes financing terrorism

Section 113 BNS 2023 introduces terrorist acts as a new BNS offence. Key elements: (1) INTENT: to threaten or likely to threaten: the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India, or to strike terror in any people; (2) MEANS: by using bombs, dynamite, explosive or inflammable substances, firearms, biological agents, chemical agents, nuclear weapons, or any other means of whatever nature; or by attacking critical infrastructure or economic targets; or by financing, planning, organising, etc. any act of terrorism; (3) Also covers recruiting, collecting funds for terrorism. Punishment: if the act results in death, the punishment is death or imprisonment for life; otherwise rigorous imprisonment not less than 5 years extendable to life, plus fine. Important: this offence coexists with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 which continues to apply. The BNS terrorism provision gives ordinary courts jurisdiction whereas UAPA cases are tried by special NIA courts.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 113

Correct answer: B. Organised crime under Section 111 BNS means: any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, extortion, smuggling, land grabbing, contract killing, financial scams, cybercrime, human trafficking committed by a person belonging to a 'crime syndicate' for individual or collective financial gain; a 'crime syndicate' means a group of two or more persons who, acting in concert, engage in a continuing unlawful activity

Section 111 BNS 2023 defines organised crime: 'Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cybercrime, trafficking, prostitution, human trafficking, obscene material trafficking, giving/taking supari or any such other unlawful activity is organised crime.' Section 111(1) Explanation (i): 'crime syndicate' means a group of two or more persons who, acting in concert, engage in a continuing unlawful activity to enhance their power, influence, or finances. Section 111(1) Explanation (ii): 'continuing unlawful activity' means activity prohibited by law beyond one occasion providing financial benefit. Punishment for organised crime: if death results, death or life imprisonment; otherwise rigorous imprisonment of not less than 5 years extendable to life; and fine of not less than Rs. 10 lakh. Section 112 BNS separately defines 'petty organised crime' (pickpocketing, card fraud, street crime, etc.) which carries lighter punishment.

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 111, 112

Correct answer: B. 18 years; Section 63 BNS specifically provides that sexual intercourse with a wife who is below 18 years of age constitutes rape, removing the earlier IPC exception for wives above 15 years

Section 63 BNS 2023 (Section 375 IPC) defines rape. The IPC Exception 2 to Section 375 originally exempted sexual intercourse by a man with his wife who was 15 years or above from the definition of rape. In Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800, the Supreme Court struck down this exception and raised the age to 18 years (aligning with the majority under the Indian Majority Act and the POCSO Act). Section 63 BNS now reflects this by providing: 'A man is said to commit rape if he has sexual intercourse with a woman under any of the following circumstances...' and Exception 2: 'Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape.' The BNS thus changes the age from 15 (IPC) to 18 years, incorporating the Supreme Court's ruling in Independent Thought. Adult marital rape (where the wife is 18 or above) remains technically legal under the BNS Exception, which is a subject of ongoing constitutional challenge.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 63 / Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)

Correct answer: B. Sexual intercourse by a man with a woman by deceitful means such as a false promise of marriage or employment or promotion or false identity; punishment is imprisonment up to 10 years and fine

Section 69 BNS 2023 is a NEWLY INTRODUCED PROVISION criminalising: 'Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, or makes false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or giving promotion; or marries after concealing identity, commits sexual intercourse not amounting to rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.' This addresses a significant gap in IPC which did not specifically criminalise such acts. Courts had sometimes held consent obtained by false promise of marriage as vitiated (not a 'free consent'), making it rape under the existing definition. Section 69 BNS creates a SEPARATE OFFENCE for such cases distinct from rape, with a maximum punishment of 10 years. This is important because not all such cases may satisfy the rape definition (especially where penetration is unclear or consent issue is complex).

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 69 (New Provision)

Correct answer: B. The testimony of the rape victim does not require corroboration as a matter of law; a rape victim who does not have reason to falsely implicate the accused can be believed.

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 established that in rape cases: (1) NO CORROBORATION is required as a rule of law; the court can convict on the sole testimony of the victim if it finds it reliable; (2) An adverse inference should NOT be drawn from the absence of corroboration; (3) Prior sexual history of the victim is IRRELEVANT to consent on the specific occasion in question; (4) Courts should not unduly emphasise minor contradictions in the testimony of a rape victim; trauma affects memory; (5) The court should be sensitive in examining the victim and not add to her trauma. Section 48 BSA 2023 now specifically provides that evidence of the victim's character or previous sexual experience is not relevant where consent is in issue in listed sexual-offence prosecutions. Section 64 BNS provides punishment for rape, with Section 64(2) covering specified aggravated circumstances.

Source note: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384

Correct answer: B. Death of a woman within 7 years of marriage caused by burns, bodily injury, or in abnormal circumstances and shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with demand for dowry; presumption of dowry death arises, shifting the burden to the accused

Section 80 BNS 2023 (Section 304B IPC) defines dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs under abnormal circumstances within 7 years of marriage, AND it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with demand for dowry, it is a dowry death. Punishment: imprisonment not less than 7 years, extendable to life imprisonment. Key elements: (1) Death within 7 years of marriage; (2) Death by burns, bodily injury, or in abnormal circumstances; (3) Cruelty or harassment soon before death; (4) Harassment in connection with demand for dowry. Section 118 BSA: once these elements are proved, the court shall presume it was a dowry death, placing the burden to disprove on the accused.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 80 / Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991 SC)